Parking "fine" - court letter

sellwin90

Hi Coupon-mad, are you able to add anything to the last post I made please?

Thanks again

nosferatu1001

1) Youre not liable for THEIR costs unless *you* have been unreasonable
If THEY have been unreasonable then as per post 2 of the newbies thread you really should submit, one or two days ahead of the hearing, your costs schedule. If you are not attending yuou cannot claim for time of..

Youre worrying way too much here. Ths is not a horrible, overly judge in silly wigs experience here.

Yes of course it is still an ABUSE OF PROCESS
They cannot claim it is a constractually agreed sum, as there was no sum given.

sellwin90

So how exactly do I construct point 8 as I went to where coupon said to and couldn't find what I was looking for (or what I thought I was meant to be looking for)

sellwin90

Ok, so I think I have my final draft of the witness statement. I have scoured some more witness statements and taken points from other statements that coupon-mad has drafted up etc as well as adding in my own. Points 1-6 remain the same, 7 and 8 are new/edited and 9 remains the same. (I presume I remove the award the costs part onwards if I decide not to attend the hearing?)

In the County Court at Location
Claim No. 123
Between
Britannia Parking Group Limited (Claimant)
and
xxx (Defendant)

---

Witness Statement

---

1. I am xxx, of address, the Defendant in this matter. I will say as follows:

2. I am the registered keeper of the vehicle in this case, vehicle registration number xxx. I live with my boyfriend who also has access to the use of my vehicle, as well as my parents, all on their own insurance.

3. On 29th November 2017, the vehicle was parked at Car Park, and had a parking ticket was purchased.

4. Upon receipt of the PCN, which stated that the vehicle and the driver had overstayed, a request for a SAR was made, as over the period of time that had elapsed from the original “offence” it could not be remembered who the driver was on the date. The SAR did not identify the driver. As well as not identifying the driver, the pictures provided were of poor quality and did not clearly identify the vehicle and the vehicle registration number in one picture, attached as exhibit A.

5. On further investigation of the car park, the signs in the car park are insufficiently lit, making it hard to read. Attached as exhibit B and C.

6. The terms and conditions at the main payment terminal was lit, although the lighting was temperamental, flickering on and off. As well as this, a box on the sign made a shadow over the terms and conditions, which are in a very small font, making it hard to read. Attached as exhibit D.

7. In addition, the sums added to the £85 parking charge appear to have been invented, an attempt at double recovery and plucked from thin air because they are not stated in clear terms/font on the sign, nor have any costs been incurred from debt collectors which are known to advertise a 'no collection no fee' service. This is a clear abuse of process by the claimant.

8. Further to point 8, I invite the court to see a similar case (also involving BW Legal) that was recently struck out by District Judge Taylor because of a clear abuse of process - Claim number: F0DP201T, Southampton Court, 10th June 2019.

9. I invite the Court to dismiss this claim in its entirety, and to award my costs of attendance at the hearing, such as are allowable pursuant to CPR 27.14.

Statement of Truth

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

Signature
Date

sellwin90

Oh and one further question, if I plan to use photos for evidence, should they be proper photographs or are printed ones from the computer on a normal piece of paper fine?

Redx

Judge Taylor echoed Judge Grand so if you are going to mention as you should then at least expand the point to correctly reflect what they both said and did

I would say printed photos are ok because any PPC paperwork like an ntk has printed photos on A4

nosferatu1001

5) _ so what? If they were poorly lit, were they even noticed by the driver? You should say what happened and the result of this; fo rexample - the signs were poorly lit, which is a breach of the BPA CoP which requires that they are... and means that the signs could not offer a contract as they could not be seen
6) Same as above. What was the result of this?

Exhibits - introduce as INITIALS/001 - a photo showing...

Not "A", "B", etc. s

KeithP

Paragraph 8 starts "8. Further to point 8...".

sellwin90

Redx wrote: »

Judge Taylor echoed Judge Grand so if you are going to mention as you should then at least expand the point to correctly reflect what they both said and did

I would say printed photos are ok because any PPC paperwork like an ntk has printed photos on A4

Point 8 now reads as so:

8. Further to point 7, Judges in County Courts up and down the Country have struck out cases that have added parking frim “costs”. I invite the court to see a similar case (also involving BW Legal) that was recently struck out by District Judge Taylor because of a clear abuse of process - Claim number: F0DP201T, Southampton Court, 10th June 2019. District Judge Taylor said the following:
It is ordered that the claim is struck out as an abuse of process.

"The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the defendant contracted to pay, This additional charge is not recoverable under the protection of freedoms act 2012, Schedule 4 not with reference to the judgement in parking eye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover,

This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the civil procedure rules 1998 "

District Judge Taylor’s order echoed the earlier Judfement from District Judge Grand, who on 21st February 2019, sitting at the Newport (IOW) County Court, had struck out a parking firm claim

sellwin90

nosferatu1001 wrote: »

5) _ so what? If they were poorly lit, were they even noticed by the driver? You should say what happened and the result of this; fo rexample - the signs were poorly lit, which is a breach of the BPA CoP which requires that they are... and means that the signs could not offer a contract as they could not be seen
6) Same as above. What was the result of this?

Exhibits - introduce as INITIALS/001 - a photo showing...

Not "A", "B", etc. s

We don't know who the driver is, so how can I say whether or not it was noticed?

I don't understand the exhibit bit? Thanks

Should the point maybe read like this:

5. On further investigation of the car park, the signs in the car park are insufficiently lit. This is a breach of the British Parking Association’s (BPA) Code of Practice (CoP), as it makes it hard to read and means that the signs could not offer a contract as they could not be seen. Attached as exhibit B and C.