told not to worry about payment and enjoy the day by the staff

harnas

first part of my WS- only to armtrac. Next is to describe IAS which should be shorter. And ten BW LEGAL. the most dificult for me will be all the references to all the cases.
also i will have to get advice on the expenses....

Is it ok to use this forum as a refference? or even this post? i do not want to cross the line and didnt see this mentioned (but i did not look for it tbh, just came to my mind).

also i did not ask for their witness to be called. I think it was pointless as he may just say No...
i will post the rest when its ready.
thanks


1. I, (xxx address), am the Defendant in this case. The facts in this statement come from my personal knowledge. Where they are not within my own knowledge there are true to the best of my information and belief.
2. 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.
3. I am the registered keeper of the vehicle in question in this case. I was also the driver on the day.
4. I arrived on the car park located in St Ives, called Tiny Car Park, next to St Ives Launderette on North Terrace street, around 7:00PM on 27th of May 2018. - also refereed to as Stennack Car Park in the appeals.
5. I did not pay for the stay on the car park and I did not display the ticket. I was told by Armtrac associate, very clearly, that I did not have to pay for the parking on that day and I took it as an agreement that overwrites the contractual obligations to pay, displayed everywhere on the car park. Below is my recollection from that day:
a. After arrivalI parked my car, took my 2 year old and went to the parking machine to pay for the stay
b. The pay machines that were present there at the time did not allow for card payments. I searched for the cash machine nearby but couldn’t find any and did not want to go away too far without paying.
c. I remembered that I have £5 note in the car. I went back with my daughter and found it in the back of my car. The machine would not accept the notes either – these were the “change only” machine so tried to search for someone that would change the £5 pounds for me. I was planning to leave if not successful.
d. There was one person seating in a red small red car (something like Citroen C1 or Toyota Aygo). His car was parked rear mine and the person was there since I arrived to the car park. I asked for the change but was told that he doesn’t have it.
e. I went on to look for someone else when the same person approached me and asked if the change that I need is for the parking payment. I confirmed that and then introduced himself as Armtrac employee and said that I don’t have to pay on this occasion. I was a little bit surprised but also in rush for the dinner. I checked with him more than few times that this is ok and he ensured me that it is and I should go and “enjoy the day”.
f. I do not recall the name of this person.
g. I trusted that what he said was a kind gesture after seeing me struggling with the pay going back and forward with my 2 years old daughter.
h. On the way out of the car park he was having a cigarette (or vape) and I asked him again if that is for sure ok, he smiled and confirmed that it is. He also confirmed that he is the only person that looks after the carpark on that day and I do not have to worry.
i. On our return, just after 9PM I noticed the PCN on my car. I tried to find the person as the note stated it was issued just 2 minutes before we came back, but I didn’t see him or anyone else again.
6. Immediately after the weekend break, on 27th of May 2018, I emailed the company to explain what has happened. The full email conversation chain is within the “Evidence 1” file. In brief:
a. I stated what has happened, briefly and hoped for quick clarification. From the very start I admitted that I did not have the ticket and that I didn’t pay for it.
b. I requested polite cancellation of the PCN.
c. I was asked about my car details and admission that I was the driver and registered keeper. I provided that
d. I was asked about my full address details, I thought the emails I receive are generated automatically as none of the points I have raised were answered in a “human way”. They were just cold requests for details. I was reluctant to give it out as was not sure of the purpose it may serve, but as it was not possible to move forward without it, I provided that in a good faith.
e. Appeal was registered with date of 30th of May 2018.
7. I received the appeal response on 4th of June 2018 dismissing the appeal (“Evidence 2” file)
a. It didn’t answer any of my questions
b. It stated only the basic facts about the car parking rules and contractual agreements
c. It stated that my car parked there without the ticket being displayed – which I admitted as my first point in my first email – as per “evidence 1”. This confirmed to me that most of the reply were automatic replies with copy/paste action without truly reading it.
d. I was told that I can appeal to the Independent Appeal Service (IAS)
e. The appeal response came with a “do not respond to this email” message, but I replied (to 2 of the addresses I had) stating that I will appeal to the IAS as the response was not answering my questions. (“evidence 3”)
f. I requested Armtrac to secure CCTV footage suggesting that even without audio, the video would support what I stated.
g. I received 2 replies – one which seemed to be automatic telling me that I should go with IAS. And second, non-automatic telling me that the CCTV is run by “separate company on behalf of the landowner” and Armtrac doesn’t have access to it. And then reiterating the fact that tickets have to be displayed for the patrol officers.
h. I thank the response and seeing that it’s the first time I am dealing with non-automatic response I asked for an honest opinion about this situation. I was always polite and remained this way but I also asked I was misled, tricked or even lied by Armtrac.
i. I didn’t receive the reply for 10 days and on 22nd of June 2018 I re-iterated my question again. I also asked for landowner details so I could obtain the information from the CCTV for future reference, which would confirm my case. Also, once again, I requested to politely cancel the PCN suggesting it would save time and troubles on both sides.
j. I received the response on the same day stating that all questions were dealt with in the appeal response from 4th of June. I was denied landowner details stating that they are protected on data protection laws.
k. I was also told that patrol officer is there to secure the site, not to advice motorists and that I should check the rules before leaving the vehicle on the car park.
l. I checked the written rules and there is nothing there that states that. The sign states that Armtrac manages and secures the car park (“evidence 4”) and there is no mention that I should not listen to their representatives.
m. I replied that I was misguided by their representative. I also told Armtrac that I do understand that they may not want to share landowners details and ask them to contact landowner to secure the footage for future reference. I reiterated that good will from them would end this dispute but it does look like all they want is to be paid regardless of the situation. I stated that I will make the appeal on the same day (22 June 2018).
n. I never received a reply.
8. As per advice above, I thought that appealing to the Independent Appeal Service would bring some justice. After all it meant to be “Independent” and there fore someone should see what I mean.

harnas

8. As per advice above, I thought that appealing to the Independent Appeal Service would bring some justice. After all it meant to be “Independent” and there fore someone should see why I have the dispute. I made an appeal on 22 June 2019 – the appeal process is contained in Evidence 5
a. The whole process felt as a cold quick response without answering the key points of my questions at all
b. It only stated facts about not displaying the tickets – again, something I was very clear from the beginning
c. It didn’t respond to my requests for the CCTV – the only response that I got was copy/paste answer from Armtrac.
d. IAS stated that the PCN was correctly issued therefore rejected the appeal.
e. This went back for second “hearing”, I reiterated that the CCTV is very important for me, even just to secure it or provide any directions of where can I get it.
f. I also stated that I’ve heard that verbal agreement is legally binding and amended the contract obligations – referring the conversation with parking officer.
g. In response, it again stated some facts but didn’t address the issues. It said that IAS is not there to give legal advice. And also that Armtrac is not the Landowner, that the signs are placed clearly and that there is photographic evidence of my car being parked there. I was puzzled with the needs to re-iterate the same responses again and again.
h. The appeal was dismissed
i. It was only then that I was made aware that Armtrac and IAS are related to each other…. (evidence?)
9. Afer the IAS refused my complaint I decided to wait and started to do some research about car parking companies. I decided not to pay and go to court believing in justice which is on my side in this case. I already devoted a lot of time trying to comply with Armtrac and IAS regulations and I didn’t see the honest will to help me. I doubt that landowner was not contacted about securing CCTV and I didn’t get his details to arrange that by my self. I was told that the information is protected legally, but through the forums (But at very late stage) I found out it’s public knowledge accessible via Land Register.
10. I signed up to some forum that helps people resolving issues and was presented with evidences of cases that could have helped my case.
11. On 29 Nov 2018 I received 2 letters (from Armtrac and from BW Legal) that BW Legal will now lead the case and represent Armtrac in the dispute.
a. They’ve sent me emails with very high numbers that I felt disproportionate to the cause.
b. They also had my contact details and called me several times
c. I answered but when was asked about my details I refused to give away requesting them to state how they obtained mine – they refused to confirm.
d. Reading through the forums I’ve learned that BW Legal “specialises” in cases like this and are using predatory methods to get the payment (like threatening with high cost for court proceedings). (Evidence x – cases examples – what to include?)
e. They also requested to fill the form with my financial details which I think is so irrelevant. One would have to ask, how do they use this information.
f. Despite all of the advice of not contacting them I decided to call them – this was on 30 May 19 at 10:26:05 – number I called: 01133234479. The duration was 00:16:02 (ewidence 6)
g. Giving all my details in all good faith I asked again to go through the case and cancel it. I had to explain this to 2 operators and after discussion I was told that it’s either payment or court. There was no room to negotiate at all, despite what the letter asking for the payment said.
h. This went exactly as described on the forums. I decided to follow the advice given from then on and ignore all of the attempts and threating letters.
i. As soon as court case was confirmed I followed the procedure to the letter and promptly.
12. Defence
a. I think that throughout this case I have shown willingness to cooperate and tried to resolve the issue within the boundaries imposed by Armtrac, IAS and BW Legal.
b. I was always polite and quick to respond.
c. I tried to obtain the only evidence that I may rely on which is the CCTV footage.
d. I was denied the key information that would help my case.
e. On top of that, they never questioned that this conversation have happened and could check their logs on who was there, confront this individual
f. As this case was unfolding, I began to feel like someone that has no rights, that is accused of lying and that was to be punished heavily for listening to the management company representative on the private property they manage.
g. I was told I shouldn’t listen to him and not making case of that their employee should be giving this advice and it is probably him that should be reprimanded.
h. They never offered to identify him. They must have logs of who was there at what time. I gave details of the car he was in and it would be very easy to identify.
i. I didn’t request this as I knew that this individual can deny everything I say. Whether for securing himself and his in the company even when the initial intentions were good (assumed at the start), or due to misleading me purposely (assumed at the end).
j. I am an honest individual that always tries to resolve the disputes quickly, I always go by facts and I never lie. My professional career reflects that and the environment I work in requires good level of transparency and honesty. On top of that I believe in dialog and good communication. This is why I was hesitant to not to respond to BW Legal even after getting the advice. And this is why I picked the phone up and called them as a last attempt – without success again.
13. Expenses claim
a. With all of the points made, I ask the court to reject the claimants claim in full
b. I also ask the court to reflect on my expenses, all unnecessary if there was a little bit of good will on the other side.
c. The expenses I had are:
d. Cover for half a day off for this hearing (contract example)
e. Parking ticket
f. Approx. 20 hours spent on research and participating in all of the appeal processes based on my current salary it equals x.
g. Payment made to (charity name)
h.
I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true

harnas

Thanks for the reassurance - will reply to questions where not addressed jn my WS. Had full day of it jumping between forums and all evidence in mails.
Need some sleep and will try to continue today/tomorrow.
I think i can make it before friday.
Thanks

harnas

I had my few hours of rest. I think I am starting to panic a little bit...
Fruitcake, thanks again for reply:

So what? A lay person using the internet to glean information is a perfectly acceptable method to glean information. It is allowed by the court so what is the problem?
You know what happened on the day, so you know it to be true. You found the other information yourself, cross checked it with several other sources, so you believe it to be true.

this is good enough. thanks for pointing out!

Quote sources if you can, including our MP's comments in open parliament.

I may have problem with this...

Conversely, they cannot prove that it is not true. The judge will decide on the balance of probabilities. A fraction over 50% either way is all that is needed. You just need to make sure your version of events is the more credible. Were there any witnesses to this interaction? Can you remember the scamtendant's name?

that's true it is 50%.. i do not have the details of he guy. I don't remember but he probably didn't introduce himself. I have seen Armtrac logo somewhere on his garment or badge and thought its good enough... no other witnesses there - my 2yo daughter at the time would be credible:)

If they want to dispute your statement they should call the scamtendant as a witness. Ask them to do this and mention/question it in court if they refuse.
Ask to see his/her notes from the day, and again question why they have not been provided if they refuse.

when do i ask for that? in my witness statement? i thought about it at some point but he would deny it right?... i reffered to it in my WS

The same type of car park … In other words, if it was not an overstay in a free car park on a retail park then it can be distinguished from the Beavis case.

ok i get it... i think - car park i stayed on was not free and was pay and display. so he argument stands that it "operates" at different rules. throughout my case i show that not only i was trying to pay but also was persuaded not to do it which is bit different in the Beavis case and this breached the "clear take or leave" and created a trap...

Is it a contract between the landowner and the scammers as opposed to an agent of the landowner and the scammers? Does the contract flow from the landowner to the scammers? Is the landlord the landowner? Are there two signatures from each party, or a director's signature and witness as per the requirements of the Companies Act?

actually it's called "agreement" prepared by Armtrac (it has Armtrac logos on it). It satates hat Owner agrees that Armtrac may take legal actions to recover monies due (doesnt say to whom and for what). it is also signed only by armtrac security services (uncleared signature) and client (owner) with clear details.
I think i know what do do with that... should i refer to it in witness statement or leave it alone as it was already pointed out in the defence?

They have not addressed the point that the letters have not been signed by a named legally qualified person, just a company name. One of the more legally minded regulars should be able to tell you what code/regulation this breaches.

See beamerguy's "abuse of process" thread that deals with fake add on charges. The Beavis case they helpfully mention capped the charges at the PCN amount itself. The only thing they can add is court fees etcetera. They cannot add on any processing charges or debt collection fees because they are included in the original charge that includes a large profit margin.

they are stating it is normal and legal to do so... not sure if i have time for that before WS is submitted but will try to read before the court case.

The sign is the contract, but I believe there was a frustration of contract in that you were prevented from complying with the terms on the express instructions of a scumpany representative.

yes agee on that...

Again, see beamerguy's "abuse of process" thread that deals with fake add on charges.

,,you are very convincing i will take a look.... but i think it is irrelevant for my WS?

Your WS is a sort of narrative of what happened on the day, and what has happened since. Some of it can be cribbed from your original post where you mention talking to the scamtendant.

bargepole's guide to court tells you how and when to submit WS etcetera, so use whatever method it tells you to do in that thread.

so again, i am not going to refer to anything that is very legal, the cases mentioned in the defence nor to what they issues as their WS...

one thing i am not able to find though - how do i send it. I tried to look in many places and the 2 questions i have are:
can i send my Witness Statement to BW Legal by email?
can i also email court?
or is there something else like the website used for setting the case to file the evidence?

MASSIVE thanks!

Coupon-mad

Armtrac and IAS are not related to each other. Search the forum for IPC Hurley Davies and you will find the truth that you need to state.

You have repeated #8 twice in the above posts.

This sentence makes no sense:

I was always polite and remained this way but I also asked I was misled, tricked or even lied by Armtrac.

harnas

Armtrac and IAS are not related to each other. Search the forum for IPC Hurley Davies and you will find the truth that you need to state.

i thought they are part of the same trade body - i think this is in my defence? perhaps i should re-word that... i will read the IPC Hurley Davies to search for it.

i know i have repeated it twice. i also now changed some of the layouts etc.

...yes i agree the statement is bad... this was before i had a nap

thanks a lot.

the one think that i would need the advice on asap is where/how to send the witness statement. I am not able to find info if Email is allowed...

harnas

changed to this:
i. It was only then that I was made aware that the IPC (Independent Parking Committee) which is the trading body Armtrac belongs to, is run by the same owners as the IAS. This made the process and the outcome clear.

Coupon-mad

That's better except you have the old (wrong) name for the IPC.

harnas

i corrected that before your reply. spotted it, again doubting myself...
it now states:
i. It was only then that I was made aware that the IPC (Independent Parking Committee, now called Independent Parking Community) which is the trading body Armtrac belongs to, is run by the same owners as the IAS. This made the process and the outcome clear

Umkomaas

harnas wrote: »

i corrected that before your reply. spotted it, again doubting myself...
it now states:
i. It was only then that I was made aware that the IPC (Independent Parking Committee, now called Independent Parking Community)

That’s still wrong!