BW Legal - LBC?

rsturbomad

Hi All,

Is it worth it or would it be classed as a conflict of interest?

Cheers
T

nosferatu1001

Yes, of course a WS is worthwhile. The more the better.
Let the court decide on the weight to give two peoples testimony, vs the NONE they will get from thePPC
She has to be prepared to turn up.

rsturbomad

Hello All,

Here is my initial draft Witness Statement. I would much appreciate your help & guidance please: -

=======================================================================

In the matter of

National Car Parks Limited (Claimant)
v
<FNAME_SNAME> (Defendant)

Claim no <CLAIM_NO>

Witness statement of Mr <FNAME_SNAME> Defendant

I am the Defendant in this matter, I am unrepresented, with no experience of Court procedures. If I do not set out documents in the way that the Claimant may do, I trust the Court will excuse my inexperience.

In this Witness statement, the facts and matters stated are true and within my own knowledge. Where they are not within my own knowledge they are true to the best of my own research from publicly available information and my belief.

Attached to this statement is my evidence and other information marked <INITIALS_NO> to which I will refer to.

1. I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all.

2. I was the registered keeper of this vehicle on the material date.

3. On the <DATE> I was in <TOWN> picking up my partner from the restaurant <RESTAURANT_NAME> where they had been dining.

4. Upon approaching the restaurant, <STREET_NAME> and the side street <S_STREET_NAME> between the car park and the restaurant was very busy with pedestrians and vehicles. There were no pick up / drop off point to pull aside and wait for my partner to enter the vehicle. See <INITIALS_1> attached and passengers POV video provided showing how crowded the area is on a regular basis. Furthermore nor was there adequate room to perform a multi-point turn in the road so I chose to use the car park to manoeuvre the vehicle safely and remain stationary in the exit of the car park, as to not obstruct the footpath as I waited in the vehicle for my partner to enter. See <INITIALS_2> attached which shows the aerial view of the car park and the direction from which I entered the car park and stopped to pick up the passengers.

5. The paragraph numbers stated below (Re#) relate to a letter I received from the Claimants solicitors on the <DATE> shortly after my Defence was submitted. Find attached to this bundle labelled <INITIALS_NO>. It is added that this appears to be more scaremongering by the Claimant's solicitors in an attempt to get me to pay the charge.

6. In the recent correspondence from the Claimants solicitors they state that my correspondence alludes to reasons for disputing their clients Parking Charge Notice.

7. There is no requirement from me as keeper to 'appeal' to what appeared to be junk mail. No adverse inference can be drawn from my decision to ignore the letters.

8. Re#4 -The Claimant's solicitors state that their client has legitimate commercial interest and sufficient standing to issue charges and bring proceedings in its own name. Furthermore it was suggested that a copy of the Land Registration was enclosed.

9. It is denied that a copy of the Land Registration has ever been provided in any correspondence from the Claimant or their Solicitors. Therefore their statement above still lacks proof. Moreover I previously requested this information in my response to the Claimants Particulars of Claim. See attached labelled <INITIALS_NO>.

10. Re#1&6 -The Claimant proclaims that I breached the following term and condition: “failure to pay all charges due for your parking.” and that I must pay a charge for damages as a result of this. With further undefined and unexplained additional charges which are way out of proportion to their parking rates.

11. It is denied that I parked the vehicle, due to the nature of me being at the material location. There was no need to park nor leave the vehicle as I was merely picking up passengers. I did not occupy a parking space nor did I remain in the car park, therefore the need to pay for parking did not cross my mind. As far as I am concerned I merely entered and exited the car park within a matter of 30 seconds at most. Picking up passengers is an activity distinctly different from leaving a car in a parking space.

12. Re#5 -The Claimant asserts that: “The signs in the car park are prominent and the T&C's are clearly displayed, and that the motorist would have had the opportunity to read and understand them on parking at the car park.”

13. This is denied as at the time of the situation I did not park nor leave the vehicle. Furthermore as highlighted in <INITIALS_2> I merely performed a U-turn from the entrance to the exit of the car park thus not even driving near or being close enough to the parking machine where the signage is situated. Furthermore at no point has the Claimant provided any evidence of the signage in the car park or highlighted where the signage is located. It is added that I requested this information in my response to the Claimants Particulars of Claim. See attached labelled <INITIALS_NO>.

14. In addition, it was dark at the material time and there was no obvious nor well lit signage from the drivers point of view. See <INITALS_3,4,5,6,7> and passengers point of view video provided.

15. In support of the above find attached the the case of “Vine V London Borough of Waltham.” Marked <INITIALS_NO>. Where the Judges found that clear entrance signs are expected. Also find attached the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice (CoP.) labelled <INITIALS_NO>.
BPA's CoP 28.4 “If a driver is parking with your permission, they must have the chance to read the terms and conditions before they enter into the contract with you. If, having had that opportunity, they decide not to park but choose to leave the car park, you must provide them with a reasonable grace period to leave, as they will not be bound by your parking contract.”

16. Re#6 -The Claimant states that, “The terms make it clear you should not park without payment of the parking charge. The enclosed photographs taken by the ANPR cameras shows your vehicles entry and exit times. After compared data from your vehicles entry and exit times against the data extracted from the parking machine payment, our clients record showed that you were in breach of the following term and condition: failure to pay all charges due for your parking.”

17. This is not proof of of parking, merely photographs taken on entry and exit. Thus not proof that I was in a parking bay for the suggested amount of time. Moreover there is no evidence of the data comparison provided. It is submitted that the actual photographs provided by the Claimant show where my vehicle was stationary as I waited for passengers – clearly in the exit of the car park. Does this not question the intended operation of the ANPR camera and a flaw in its positioning in the exit of the car park. If this camera records video the Claimant would clearly see this is exactly where the vehicle was stationary.

18. I have concerns about how the Claimant has handled my personal information which from recollection has been passed to multiple parties including Gladstones and Trace Debt Recovery. It is added that I have previously requested a Subject Access Request (SAR) as part of my initial response letter. See attached <INITIALS_NO>. My SAR request clearly stated not to take any further action until they had complied with my request. To which the Claimant and their Solicitors have ignored.

19. Re#7,8 & 11 -Further scaremongering and blatant mocking of my defence.

20. It is my choice to defend this case myself without legal advise or representation. It is submitted that I have researched parking law and similar cases on this matter online in my spare time. Furthermore I am not fluent in the formal and technical language of legal documents and have relied on similar cases in which I have researched to put my defence together. I believe that this is perfectly legal and that the Claimants solicitors were merely attempting to back me into a corner as a last ditch effort to make me pay.

21. This further adds to the conduct of how the Claimants Solicitors have pursued this claim. Being down right rude and unprofessional. This type of response not only questions their integrity as solicitors but will highly unlikely see these types of claims being settled outside of the court. Simply out of principle.

22. Given the fact that the Claimant's Solicitors are a known issuer of robo-claims with fundamental errors as pointed out in my Defence. I find it amusing that they believe my Defence has little or no prospects of success.

23. Re#9 The Claimant suggests that because I have not tendered any evidence in support of my position and that there position remains unchanged.

24. There was no requirement from me to have provided any evidence at this stage.

25. Re#10 - Again the Claimant proclaims that “The evidence held in our clients favour supports the logical conclusion that you were parked without payment of the parking charge on the time of contravention. Therefore, your breach of the terms of the contractual licence affording you permission to occupy the land in question (the car park) is unequivocal.”

26.Again it is denied that I parked the vehicle, or that the Claimant has provided actual evidence to support this. Nor did I agree to any terms or contract.

27. Furthermore as I was merely passing through the car park, I had not entered into any contract thus alleged unauthorised parking can only be an event falling under the tort of trespass. In support of this I have included a copy of the “ParkingEye V Beavis case” labelled <INITIALS_NO>. Where the Court confirmed that ParkingEye could not have pursued a sum in damaged or for trespass.

28. The Court is invited to dismiss the claim and to award my costs of dealing with this claim and attendance at the hearing.

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

Signed <SIG>

Dated <DATE>

=======================================================================

Many thanks
T

Coupon-mad

2. I was the registered keeper and driver of this vehicle on the material date, but did not park the car, nor did i have any opportunity to read any signs and certainly not accept any punitive contract, during the seconds involved in the manoeuvre.

Remove #6, #21 and #22 that add nothing.

#23 has a 'there' typo (should be their).

What about the Trade Body CoP on grace periods; I didn't see that mentioned?

Did you get your SAR in the end and how long was the car on site?

rsturbomad

Coupon-mad wrote: »

2. I was the registered keeper and driver of this vehicle on the material date, but did not park the car, nor did i have any opportunity to read any signs and certainly not accept any punitive contract, during the seconds involved in the manoeuvre.

Remove #6, #21 and #22 that add nothing.

#23 has a 'there' typo (should be their).

What about the Trade Body CoP on grace periods; I didn't see that mentioned?

Did you get your SAR in the end and how long was the car on site?

Many thanks for the rapid response Coupon, I shall amend.

I didn't include the CoP on grace periods because of BW's recent correspondence. They included photos of the vehicle on entrance and exit timestamped which shows I was over the 10 minute grace period. 13 mins 28 seconds to be exact. Unless of course i'm missing something - ill gladly add it to the WS.

Yet to receive the SAR.

Cheers
T

Coupon-mad

Well NCP are in the BPA, so you could put into evidence, Kelvin Reynolds' BPA article:

https://www.britishparking.co.uk/News/good-car-parking-practice-includes-grace-periods

Good car parking practice includes 'grace' periods
Kelvin Reynolds, Head of Public Affairs and Policy at the British Parking Association (BPA) says there is a difference between ‘grace’ periods and ‘observation’ periods in parking and that good practice allows for this.

“An observation period is the time when an enforcement officer should be able to determine what the motorist intends to do once in the car park. The BPA’s guidance specifically says that there must be sufficient time for the motorist to park their car, observe the signs, decide whether they want to comply with the operator’s conditions and either drive away or pay for a ticket,” he explains.

“No time limit is specified. This is because it might take one person five minutes, but another person 10 minutes depending on various factors, not limited to disability.”

The BPA’s guidance defines the ‘grace period’ as the time allowed after permitted or paid-for parking has expired but before any kind of enforcement takes place.

Kelvin continues: “In the instance of a PCN being issued while a ticket is being purchased, the operator has clearly not given the motorist sufficient time to read the signs and comply as per the operator’s own rules. If a motorist decides they do not want to comply and leaves the car park, then a reasonable period of time should be provided also.”

I would also add that you do not believe you were actually stopped for more than 10 minutes anyway, for three reasons:

(a) part of the time was manoeuvring and driving round, and

(b) the ANPR cameras are not synchronised, so that the 'in' cameras in such car parks are often 3 or 4 minutes out with the clock on the 'out' camera, neither of which are attached to the PDT machine clock either, as the systems are entirely separate.
The Claimant's evidence is flimsy and unreliable, expecting the court to believe the times on two photos from two cameras, that conveniently make the timeline appear to be over the minimum (not maximum) grace period in the BPA CoP.

(c) the photos only show the car at the entrance and exit, not in the car park, and leaving alone involves queuing for a main road, where a traffic light is just yards away and the traffic on the road can be stationary (if true!). So, to be credible, the Claimant would have to show the exact time the car reached the queue for the exit, not two minutes later when the car was still trapped there.

I would put the relevant BPA CoP section on grace periods into evidence, alongside Kelvin's article. Remember the TEN minutes (even if the Judge only thinks there is one period to consider) is a MINIMUM they must allow, not a Maximum, and it's parking time...not 'total stay time' unless the signs are very clear on that point.

A circumspect driver would understand any grace period to relate to parking time.

A contract would only start once money went into the machine, but because you were NOT parked for more than 10 minutes, there was no parking contract to accept.

rsturbomad

Coupon many thanks for pointing this out - you're a star :T. I will definitely be adding this into my WS. Its very reassuring,
Cheers
T

rsturbomad

How's this look : -

==========================================================================

In the matter of

National Car Parks Limited (Claimant)
v
<FNAME_SNAME> (Defendant)

Claim no <CLAIM_NO>

Witness statement of Mr <FNAME_SNAME> Defendant

I am the Defendant in this matter, I am unrepresented, with no experience of Court procedures. If I do not set out documents in the way that the Claimant may do, I trust the Court will excuse my inexperience.

In this Witness statement, the facts and matters stated are true and within my own knowledge. Where they are not within my own knowledge they are true to the best of my own research from publicly available information and my belief.

Attached to this statement is my evidence and other information marked <INITIALS_NO> to which I will refer to.

1. I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all.

2. I was the registered keeper and driver of this vehicle on the material date, but did not park the car, nor did I have any opportunity to read any signs and certainly not accept any punitive contract, during the seconds involved in the manoeuvre.

3. On the <DATE> I was in <TOWN> picking up my partner from the restaurant <RESTAURANT_NAME> where they had been dining.

4. Upon approaching the restaurant, <STREET_NAME> and the side street <S_STREET_NAME> between the car park and the restaurant was very busy with pedestrians and vehicles. There were no pick up / drop off point to pull aside and wait for my partner to enter the vehicle. See <INITIALS_1> attached and passengers POV video provided showing how crowded the area is on a regular basis. Furthermore nor was there adequate room to perform a multi-point turn in the road so I chose to use the car park to manoeuvre the vehicle safely and remain stationary in the exit of the car park, as to not obstruct the footpath as I waited in the vehicle for my partner to enter. See <INITIALS_2> attached which shows the aerial view of the car park and the direction from which I entered the car park and stopped to pick up the passengers.

5. The paragraph numbers stated below (Re#) relate to a letter I received from the Claimants solicitors on the <DATE> shortly after my Defence was submitted. Find attached to this bundle labelled <INITIALS_NO>. It is added that this appears to be more scaremongering by the Claimant's solicitors in an attempt to get me to pay the charge.

7. Re#4 -The Claimant's solicitors state that their client has legitimate commercial interest and sufficient standing to issue charges and bring proceedings in its own name. Furthermore it was suggested that a copy of the Land Registration was enclosed.

8. It is denied that a copy of the Land Registration has ever been provided in any correspondence from the Claimant or their Solicitors. Therefore their statement above still lacks proof. Moreover I previously requested this information in my response to the Claimants Particulars of Claim. See attached labelled <INITIALS_NO>.

9. Re#1&6 -The Claimant proclaims that I breached the following term and condition: “failure to pay all charges due for your parking.” and that I must pay a charge for damages as a result of this. With further undefined and unexplained additional charges which are way out of proportion to their parking rates.

10. It is denied that I parked the vehicle, due to the nature of me being at the material location. There was no need to park nor leave the vehicle as I was merely picking up passengers. I did not occupy a parking space nor did I remain in the car park, therefore the need to pay for parking did not cross my mind. As far as I am concerned I merely entered and exited the car park. Picking up passengers is an activity distinctly different from leaving a car in a parking space.

11. Re#5 -The Claimant asserts that: “The signs in the car park are prominent and the T&C's are clearly displayed, and that the motorist would have had the opportunity to read and understand them on parking at the car park.”

12. This is denied as at the time of the situation I did not park nor leave the vehicle. Furthermore as highlighted in <INITIALS_2> I merely performed a U-turn from the entrance to the exit of the car park thus not even driving near or being close enough to the parking machine where the signage is situated. Furthermore at no point has the Claimant provided any evidence of the signage in the car park or highlighted where the signage is located. It is added that I requested this information in my response to the Claimants Particulars of Claim. See attached labelled <INITIALS_NO>.

13. In addition, it was dark at the material time and there was no obvious nor well lit signage from the drivers point of view. See <INITALS_3,4,5,6,7> and passengers point of view video provided.

14. In support of the above find attached the the case of “Vine V London Borough of Waltham.” Marked <INITIALS_NO>. Where the Judges found that clear entrance signs are expected. Also find attached the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice (CoP.) labelled <INITIALS_NO>.
BPA's CoP 28.4 “If a driver is parking with your permission, they must have the chance to read the terms and conditions before they enter into the contract with you. If, having had that opportunity, they decide not to park but choose to leave the car park, you must provide them with a reasonable grace period to leave, as they will not be bound by your parking contract.”

15. Re#6 -The Claimant states that, “The terms make it clear you should not park without payment of the parking charge. The enclosed photographs taken by the ANPR cameras shows your vehicles entry and exit times. After compared data from your vehicles entry and exit times against the data extracted from the parking machine payment, our clients record showed that you were in breach of the following term and condition: failure to pay all charges due for your parking.”

16. This is not proof of of parking, merely photographs taken on entry and exit. Thus not proof that I was in a parking bay for the suggested amount of time. Moreover there is no evidence of the data comparison provided. It is submitted that the actual photographs provided by the Claimant show where my vehicle was stationary as I waited for passengers – clearly in the exit of the car park. Does this not question the intended operation of the ANPR camera and a flaw in its positioning in the exit of the car park. If this camera records video the Claimant would clearly see this is exactly where the vehicle was stationary.

17. I do not believe that I was stopped for more than 10 minutes for the following reasons:

(a) part of the time was manoeuvring and driving round and

(b) the ANPR cameras cameras are not synchronised, so that the 'in' cameras in such car parks are often 3 or 4 minutes out with the clock on the out camera, neither of which are attached to the PDT machine clock either, as the systems are entirely separate. The Claimant's evidence is flimsy and unreliable, expecting the court to believe the times on two photos from two cameras, that conveniently make the timeline appear to be over the minimum (not maximum) grace period in the BPA CoP.

18. The BPA CoP on Grace Periods ( see attached <INITIALS_NO>) states:

(13.1) “If a driver is parking without your permission, or at locations where parking is not normally permitted they must have the chance to read the terms and conditions before they enter into the ‘parking contract’ with you. If, having had that opportunity, they decide not to park but choose to leave the car park, you must provide them with a reasonable grace period to leave, as they will not be bound by your parking contract.”

(13.2) “If the parking location is one where parking is normally permitted, you must allow the driver a reasonable grace period in addition to the parking event before enforcement action is taken. In such instances the grace period must be a minimum of 10 minutes.”

19. In further support of the above see Kelvin Reynolds recent BPA article (attached <INITIALS_NO>):

Good car parking practice includes 'grace' periods
Kelvin Reynolds, Head of Public Affairs and Policy at the British Parking Association (BPA) says there is a difference between ‘grace’ periods and ‘observation’ periods in parking and that good practice allows for this.

“An observation period is the time when an enforcement officer should be able to determine what the motorist intends to do once in the car park. The BPA’s guidance specifically says that there must be sufficient time for the motorist to park their car, observe the signs, decide whether they want to comply with the operator’s conditions and either drive away or pay for a ticket,” he explains.

“No time limit is specified. This is because it might take one person five minutes, but another person 10 minutes depending on various factors, not limited to disability.”

The BPA’s guidance defines the ‘grace period’ as the time allowed after permitted or paid-for parking has expired but before any kind of enforcement takes place.

Kelvin continues: “In the instance of a PCN being issued while a ticket is being purchased, the operator has clearly not given the motorist sufficient time to read the signs and comply as per the operator’s own rules. If a motorist decides they do not want to comply and leaves the car park, then a reasonable period of time should be provided also.”

20. In light of the use of the ANPR camera I have concerns about how the Claimant has handled my personal information which from recollection has been passed to multiple parties including Gladstones and Trace Debt Recovery. It is added that I have previously requested a Subject Access Request (SAR) as part of my initial response letter. See attached <INITIALS_NO>. My SAR request clearly stated not to take any further action until they had complied with my request. To which the Claimant and their Solicitors have ignored.

21. Re#7,8 & 11 - Further scaremongering and blatant mocking of my defence.

22. It is my choice to defend this case myself without legal advise or representation. It is submitted that I have researched parking law and similar cases on this matter online in my spare time. Furthermore I am not fluent in the formal and technical language of legal documents and have relied on similar cases in which I have researched to put my defence together. I believe that this is perfectly legal and that the Claimants solicitors were merely attempting to back me into a corner as a last ditch effort to make me pay.

23. Re#9 The Claimant suggests that because I have not tendered any evidence in support of my position and that their position remains unchanged.

24. There was no requirement from me to have provided any evidence at this stage.

25. Re#10 - Again the Claimant proclaims that “The evidence held in our clients favour supports the logical conclusion that you were parked without payment of the parking charge on the time of contravention. Therefore, your breach of the terms of the contractual licence affording you permission to occupy the land in question (the car park) is unequivocal.”

26. Again it is denied that I parked the vehicle, or that the Claimant has provided actual evidence to support this. Nor did I agree to any terms or contract.

27. Furthermore as I was merely passing through the car park, I had not entered into any contract thus alleged unauthorised parking can only be an event falling under the tort of trespass. In support of this I have included a copy of the “ParkingEye V Beavis case” labelled <INITIALS_NO>. Where the Court confirmed that ParkingEye could not have pursued a sum in damaged or for trespass.

28. The Court is invited to dismiss the claim and to award my costs of dealing with this claim and attendance at the hearing.

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

Signed <SIG>

Dated <DATE>

rsturbomad

Evening all,

I asked my partner to write a Witness Statement (I stated 2 witnesses inc myself in part D3 of the questionnaire)

I assume it doesn't need to be as broad as my WS and can simply backup my points 2, 3 & 4?

Cheers
Turbo

Coupon-mad

Yes, correct, but with the headings and statement of truth, signature and date.

And your partner, being a witness, should attend the hearing with you.