Driver observed leaving site whilst vehicle remained parked on premises

Coupon-mad

Be aware that a lay rep is not a witness (a Judge may not allow that person to be both, anyway, in case that was the plan). Just checking you were not assuming a lay rep to speak for the D, is a witness. No they aren't.

You do not have to mention a lay rep in advance.

Smaru

Coupon-mad,thank you so much for looking out for errors and wrong assumptions;the role of lay rep is now very clear thanks to all the posts by the supportive forum members .
The defendant's thinking is on the line of whether to use other occupants in the car as witnesses to strengthen the defence. Or,to leave it ,and then let the claimant prove their claim (since they have been put to strict proof to demonstrate with evidence that occupants of the vehicle were seen leaving the site).

Coupon-mad

OK, so I agree with the others, put down 2. You can always change it and decide which witnesses to field, when that time comes.

It is your prerogative.

nosferatu1001

The DQ provides an estimate
Thats all
If one turns up instead of 2, then that isnt an issue
THe reason that Gladrags et al write is when there will be NOONE there from the claimants side; this MUST be notified to the court, and has *nothing* to do with the number of witnesses; as pointed out by you, BW ha ve put "TBC" and will not have anyone at all turn up, as an actual *witness*

Talking of which - got your notification in yet parking parasites? the one youre required to file in order to notify the court you will rely on some hilarious hearsay?

Smaru

Ok,that sounds easier and gives some flexibilty. Thank you nosferatu1001and coupon-mad

Smaru

Dear forum members,
Quick query, Is it part of the Court Process for the Claimant's rep to send a letter along these lines :
We note your defence alludes to your reasons for disputing our client's PCN.We have set out our client's postion below in response to your defence.
Background:
1. For the avoidance of any doubt ,our client's claim is for damages as direct result of your breach of our client's terms an conitions
2.For all intents and purposes ,our client has a legitimate commercial interest and sufficient standing to (a) issue Parking Charge Notices and and b) bring proceedings in its own name
3. The signage .......forms a unilateral offer ..........an objective observer would consider this action to have been done in acceptance of the terms and conditions.
Core terms and conditons:
4. The signage.....
The Breach
5,On xx/xx/xxxx.....
6. The terms and conditons which you accepted on entering are unambiguous
7.Our client's parking attendant observed you leaving site....
8.As a result of the breach ,our client is well within their contractual rights to isssue PCN and take all necessay steps(including legal proceedings) to recover outstanding charges
Your defence:
9.We would like to bring to your attention the enclosed extracts from a widely known online forum.You will no doubt recognise the same .
10.We are concerned by the conduct you are taking, and in consideration of the above your defence is liable to be struck out.
11.There are clearly serious concerns regarding your credibilty as a defendant, and the allegations made in your defence coupled with the contents of the enclosed online forum obeservations.
12.It is our client's position that you have no real prospect of successfully defending the claim.
If you wish to settle the balance......please contact within 7 days.
XXXX
PS :(Must add here that there are about fiftyish pages with prints of ALL the posts on the thread )

Fruitcake

Sadly, the more desperate the scammers and their agents get, the more underhand their actions become.

We have seen parking scammers use information from here and on pepipoo throughout the process, appeals process, and even in court.

One of BW's clients was twice beaten by a poster from MSE, once in court and I think they dropped the second case because they knew they were beaten before a judge saw it. The same MSE poster beat the same scammers in court when they decided to represent themselves instead of using BW. Presumably they realised BW were too expensive, especially when they kept losing to the same defendant.

If the scammers agents' were confident they will win, they would just pitch up in court. Instead they are trying all sorts of methods to prevent a judge from seeing their case.
What are they so afraid of that they desperately don't want a judge to see it?

Why do they feel it necessary to stalk a member of an internet forum and quote other posters such as myself?

Please note, the word scammer(s) with regard to unregulated private parking companies and their agents has been used by UK MPs across all parties in open parliamentary debate. My use of it here is my opinion, as well as a reproduction and reflection of our MPs' opinions.

Please also note that UK citizens are covered by the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, as amended by sections 111 and 112 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, an act the scammers and their agents purport to follow.

The new section 4A of the Protection from Harassment Act introduces a new offence of stalking involving fear of violence or serious alarm or distress.

beamerguy

Well look, they read the forum and if they really think that there are serious concerns regarding your credibility as a defendant, very doubtful a judge would think the same.

The simple fact is for the PPC to prove their claim, they need to show a judge that you left the site. Seems they cannot

This letters stinks of desperation and a vindictive way to pressure you into paying. It is so unprofessional

We have very serious concerns about the credibility of BWLegal attempting to bring such a case to court

A copy of this letter must be sent to the SRA with a severe complaint about these fabrications
https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/problems.page

Not much to say about this desperation and if they wish to show this whole thread to a court they are welcome to, infact it may well raise the eyebrows of a judge ????

As fruitcake says, they tried this wheeze of MSE a while back and they lost in court anyway

THE CLAIM: DRIVER LEAVING SITE ?

PROVE IT ??

What a disgusting letter ..... and the SRA approve them ????

Smaru

Thank you Fruitcake and Beamerguy

The new section 4A of the Protection from Harassment Act introduces a new offence of stalking involving fear of violence or serious alarm or distress.

...this certainly is a distress.

Fruitcake

I agree with beamerchappy. You should report the actions of the scammers' agents to the SRA as well as your MP.

If you feel threatened then you should seek legal and even medical help if this is causing you stress.

According to the Protection from Harassment Act, two occasions where you feel under threat could be considered a breach of said act. I believe you have been contacted twice now in the same manner.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/section/111/enacted

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1997/40/section/4A