Gladstones claim form received

beamerguy

Ezisola wrote: »

I dont think so? I've just made reference to my vehicle and me going to it after work.

You are opening yourself up to "who then drove the vehicle"

Ezisola

beamerguy wrote: »

You are opening yourself up to "who then drove the vehicle"

I agree! Hence why I've asked if it would aid the defence to just admit the driver but so far all replies have said not to..

nosferatu1001

You need to make your OWN decision on what you think is best - to ID the driver or not

If the defendants place of work was the site, then the balance of probability will tip into one decision fairly quickly.

Ezisola

nosferatu1001 wrote: »

If the defendants place of work was the site, then the balance of probability will tip into one decision fairly quickly.

Yes, the defendant (registered keeper) was at the time employed by a company with offices on the estate.

In the witness statement I posted above I've not named nor denied anyone being the driver. Do you think it better to specifically do one of those or just leave it as it is above?

System

Do you think it better to specifically do one of those or just leave it as it is above?

The rule in Witness Statements is to make it clear that what you are saying comes from "knowledge" i.e. being there or "belief" - a guess at what might have happened. So unless you state which, a judge can decide to ignore part of what you say (the belief) as you lack "knowledge" of the events.

On the other hand, if you read their WS you will see they deliberately don't mention knowledge/belief and if you are able to say you were there, you are better placed to trash their WS as the person writing their WS's invariably were not there and are only guessing (aka lying).

It's a simple decision, and can't understand all this "don't name the driver" nonsense.

Coupon-mad

I wasn't encouraging them not to defend as driver. I merely observed:

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Surely the WS you have now drafted, admits the D was the driver?

...and as it is UKCPM (who are generally POFA compliant) I never advise using the POFA against such firms, only with those where we know they are non POFA and it's worth using that point - e.g. CEL or Excel, VCS, etc.

The OP should certainly write as the driver who was there on the day.

Ezisola

Thank you both, I shall amend my witness statement.

In the mean time, I had an interesting call with my old employer who apparently had a very senior director recieve a parking ticket under the same circumstances. He managed to win in court with the help of the company's lawyers.

They have been in contact to advise that their employees should not be getting tickets under any circumstances and even mentioned he used in his defence: "significant doubt over UK CPM’s right to operate based on their own submission of their ‘service agreement’ which states ‘no enforcement during opening hours’ in it’s Restrictions section".

So it appears UKCPM have no right to enforce anything on that site during normal opening hours. Complete cowboys.

Coupon-mad

Ask him for his email/paperwork to use as evidence...you need evidence.

Ezisola

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Ask him for his email/paperwork to use as evidence...you need evidence.

I've got hold of the service agreement:

Ezisola

And the terms for the licence to occupy between my previous employer and the business park Ltd. My understanding is that because my company has already paid for this licence, the landowner/UKCPM cannot make any arguement about loss of earnings etc such as in the Beavis case?