Wrong reg entered - defence???

texaspete777

Apologies for any confusion. I was using "defence" as a general term, rather than a reference to a specific part of the process.


To be clear, I am submitting my witness statement and evidence.

Le_Kirk

texaspete777 wrote: »

To be clear, I am submitting my witness statement and evidence.

In which case you write "what happened on the day" in your own words in the first person (take care if you have denied being the driver, you found all this out by being a passenger in the car or asking the driver), relating all your points to the legal arguments in your already submitted defence and linking it to evidence you will submit, i.e. photos, signage etc.

Check out the NEWBIE thread for GUIDANCE on how to write a WS and for examples.

Redx

and you need to read other court case threads that are further along than yours, or completed, to see what they did

like the advice I gave today in this thread about this same stage

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5680604/sip-parking-fine-passed-to-gladstones

dont just stay on your own thread, blinkered, look at all the others on here, its not as if your m8 is the only one with a court case, we see dozens on here every week

but the WS needs to be written by BILL, as only he knows his own story (think about it , how would we know what he is a witness to ?)

templates do not cut it when its a bespoke story , as in a witness statement

its about what he knows, not what he has heard or what we think

and you misled us by posting a defence (it starts and finished with that DEFENCE word) , not a witness statement, leading us to believe he was barking up the wrong tree, because that defence above is definitely NOT a WS

texaspete777

Ok. I’m sorry. I'd not dealt with this for a while and had looked at the wrong section. I've now looked at some of the example witness statements and I've come up with the following. I have received all statements and evidence from the Claimant, of which I refer to in the WS below.

In the County Court at XXXXX
Claim No XXXXX
Between
Vehicle Control Services Ltd (Claimant)
and
XXXXXX (Defendant)

---

Witness Statement

---

1. I am XXXXXXXX of [Address], [Postcode], the Defendant in this matter. I will say as follows :

2. On [Date], I visited the XXXXX[car park] as the driver of a vehicle bearing the registration XXXX XXX. I paid for a ticket and displayed it clearly in the windscreen of the vehicle.

3. The registered keeper of the vehicle received a Parking Charge Notice(issue date: XXXXXX) from the Claimant, demanding the payment of £100, which would be reduced to £60 if paid within 14 days. Through the website provided by Claimant, The registered keeper advised the Claimant that they were not the driver at the time of the alleged offence and provided my details as the driver.

4. I, as the driver of the vehicle have never received any separate PCN, however, I lodged an appeal with the Claimant through their website, confirming status as the diver, my intentions and actions on the day of the alleged offence and requesting that they check their records for either :
a) an entry on that date with a VRN similar to the vehicle I was driving, or,
b) an entry with the VRN of the other car of which I am a driver (VRN provided to the Claimant)

5. The Claimant responded, confirming that the VRN of the other car of which I am a driver was entered, however, as their terms and conditions specify that the "full and accurate registration number of the vehicle which has been parked on site must be entered; by failing to do that the ticket purchased was invalid and you became liable for the Charge Notice issued" and that they are "unable to accept the mitigating circumstances raised...".

6. An Appeal to the IAS was made on [date}. I received a reply on [date] advising me that the appeal was dismissed on the grounds that the PCN was "lawfully issued".

7. In regards to The Claimant's statements :
7.1 I have provided proof (in their own evidence) 'TH3 - LIST OF TICKETS PURCHASED AT TIME OF THE CONTRAVENTION', of the VRN entered into the payment machine at a time immediately after the time of arrival of the vehicle driven onto the site that day. The Claimant has also provided proof of this arrival time with the photographic evidence they submitted.
7.2 The Claimant’s submission that “it is not unreasonable to assume that the Defendant had both the Said Vehicle and the vehicle bearing the registration number XXXXX at the site, but failed to pay the required tariff for the Said Vehicle” cannot be substantiated, as they cannot and have not provided proof of the vehicle bearing the registration XXXX entering or exiting the site, quite simply, because it did not happen.

8. I submit to the court that I have made an honest attempt to pay for the space that I occupied on the date in question and made a simple and genuine error with the VRN entry. I submit that I have proven my intention to fulfil the requirements of the car park terms and conditions, by paying the monies due and in no way have I deprived the Claimant financially.

Statement of Truth

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

Signature
Date

The_Deep

If this does ge6 in front f a judge, he/she may consider it a trifling matter, certainly not meriting damages of £100 to the scammer,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_minimis

and the law does not concern itself with trifles.


It is the will of Parliament that these scammers be put out of business.

Hopefully that will take place in the near future. The Bill has passed through the HOC without hitch, and goes to the Lords soon. In the meantime involve your MP, the poor dears are buckling under the weight of complaints about these scammers. Read this one which I wrote earlier

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of alleged contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors. Is has been suggested by an MP that some of these companies may have connections to organised crime.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, (especially Smart}, and others have already been named and shamed in the House of Commons as have Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each week), hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned. They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

The problem has become so widespread that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers.

Sir Greg Knight's Private Members Bill to curb the excesses, and perhaps close down, some of these companies passed its Third Reading in late November, and, with a fair wind, will become Law next year.

All three readings are available to watch on the internet, (some 6-7 hours), and published in Hansard. MPs have an extremely low opinion of the industry. Many are complaining that they are becoming overwhelmed by complaints from members of the public. Add to their burden, complain in the most robust terms about the scammers.

texaspete777

Is it not too late to contact my MP?

I have to submit my statement / evidence by Monday 7th Jan. Can they really affect any change to my case at this point?

KeithP

Your MP needs to know about the problems his constituents are facing.

The only way to be rid of this scourge is by encouraging your MP, and all MPs, to follow the lead made by Sir Greg Knight MP and support his private members bill being progressed through Parliament at this very moment.

bargepole

texaspete777 wrote: »

Is it not too late to contact my MP?

I have to submit my statement / evidence by Monday 7th Jan. Can they really affect any change to my case at this point?

By the time you get a response from your MP (if any) the case will long be over.

But more pertinently, you WS should refer to evidence exhibits attached to the statement, so that the exhibits are led into evidence.

For example:

"The Claimant responded, confirming that the VRN of the other car of which I am a driver was entered. A copy of their response is attached as evidence exhibit AB4", and so on.

texaspete777

Something I missed at the beginning(along with many other issues) - The NTK was posted 6 weeks after the car was parked.

According to POFA, to be considered valid, the NTK must be delivered: (Where no notice to driver has been served (e.g ANPR is used -as in this case)) Not later than 14 days after the vehicle was parked.

Now, as I've mentioned, regrettably, having zero knowledge of the way the law works, I opted to take the honesty route and responded through their website, advising them of my identity as the driver and of my actions/intentions etc. However, seeing as the original NTK was invalid due to not being served in the required time, does this then mean the PCN is invalid and therefore not transferable to anyone else, or because I spilled the beans already, has it become irrelevant?

Umkomaas

or because I spilled the beans already, has it become irrelevant?

Totally I'm afraid.