Help with defence for court claim

robby29

I have written a letter to the court and been into the court today to get both of these claims consolidated which they have told me should not be a problem.

I have till the 30th July to send copies to the court and claimant that I intend to rely upon. I have already written a defence and sent it to the Northampton court some time ago do I need to draft another one up or is the one I’ve already sent quiet sufficient?

Could someone prep me on what info is best to gather and sent to bw and the court?

I have photos of the place in question and signs already.

Redx

No, the first defence is your one and only defence

The next stage is your WS and Exhibits (evidence) by deadline day

So witness statement or statements, photos , paperwork, transcripts and other docs etc

Read the newbies thread, post #2, and the bargepole links to know what comes when

robby29

When you say witness statements I take it off this means if there are any witnesses?

The only evidence I have is photos not sure what else I could gather together.

KeithP

robby29 wrote: »

When you say witness statements I take it off this means if there are any witnesses?

The only evidence I have is photos not sure what else I could gather together.

Your Witness Statement.

Have you given up reading the NEWBIES thread for guidance?

In post #2 of that thread it clearly states that the Defendant has to supply a Witness Statement and evidence.

That very same post on the NEWBIES thread also gives a list of things you might like to consider supplying as evidence.

Redx

Correct , and YOU are witness number one

The photos is one aspect, you also have docs and transcripts and parts of laws as well, so all paperwork that you are relying on unless it's statute like POFA. Plus even then you may be adding parts of it for easy accessibility on the day, so a judge isn't wading through pages of info for one paragraph

If you don't know what is needed by now, then you haven't read other court claims or that newbies thread properly or at all. I am convinced that you are doing neither

Le_Kirk

Are we to assume that you have received and returned the DQ and now have a court date? If that is the case the letter telling you the court and the date would have supplied deadlines for Witness Statement and evidence submission.

robby29

I will have a read through the newbie section I must admit I did read through it some time ago but have forgotten most of it will refresh my memory.

I have received the dq and sent this back I now have a court date if September and to file everything by the end of July.

robby29

I have read various statements and the newbies thread and come up with this so far any input if this is good or bad would be much appreciated.

I have read a recent case from Britannia Parking that was due to be heard at southampton magistrates where Judge Giddins threw this out, coupon-mad sorry if i have copied some of your input on this thread.




WITNESS STATEMENT
____________________________


The Particulars of Claim give no hint as to the allegation, making the position as Defendant keeper who was not driving, almost impossible.

1. The facts in this statement come from my personal knowledge. Where they are not within my own knowledge there are true to the best of my information and belief.

2. I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all and this is my Witness Statement in support of my defense as already filed.

3. The claimant has produced no evidence of who was driving and is put to strict proof.

4. I have no recollection of this occurrence, and as the vehicle in question is a vehicle used for work purposes with other contractors using it, time has passed and its impossible to confirm who was driving on the contravention date and time.

5. The claimant is not relying on the Protection Of Freedom Act 2012 (POFA) and therefore cannot hold a registered keeper liable, this has been mentioned on the letter from the claimant dated 06th February 2019 exhibit number ………

6. The Claimant claims no right to pursue myself the Defendant as the registered keeper as they have failed to meet the conditions of PoFA 2012. I the keeper could only be held liable if the claimant had fully complied with the strict requirements of POFA 2012 which the claimant BW LEGAL has noted they do not intend to rely upon. (Exhibit PoFA Schedule 4)


7. The claimant cannot “presume” that I the defendant and RK was the driver at the time of the alleged contravention.

8. The claimant has said the windscreen PCN 'offered the Defendant the chance to appeal'. This is highly misleading. The PCN did nothing of the sort. It was a Notice to Driver only, and offered the driver a chance to appeal, and the Claimant knows from the defense - had they bothered to read it properly - that the driver was not the Defendant. Further, a driver is under NO obligation whatsoever to appeal to an invoice from this industry, so there was no 'acquiescence' to the charge at all.


9. I assert under ‘statement of truth’ that I was not the driver on this occasion, and was not working in this area on the contravention date or time. This will be repeated in court should this claim proceed to a hearing.

10. With no route in law to transfer liability for any alleged contravention, by a driver - to the RK, this claim is null and void. There is no case to answer. The claimant must prove who was driving then take the matter up separately with that person.

11. Furthermore the claimant has since produced a letter dated 20th April 2018 from Britannia Parking exhibit……… showing this was delivered to ............... this is the incorrect address of where the defendant coincided and the defendants previous address, A clear statement that the defendant was not aware of any PCN notice. The defendant moved to the current address on 10th April 2018 ..................... this was before the contravention date, and the defendants V5 document was then sent to the DVLA and updated with the correct address v5 attached exhibit…… exhibit….. shows the date the v5 was printed and this can take the DVLA 6-8 weeks to update this and sent it back to the defendant.

12. The first the defendant heard about the matter was a letter from BW LEGAL at the defendants current address ..............., The claimant “BW LEGAL” must of tracked the defendant to the current address by other means.

13. The claimant has still failed to supply sufficient evidence to support this claim. with only letters produced as evidence from “Britannia Parking” for the pcn notice, These are irrelevant as the defendant never received these notices as the claimant did not send these to the defendants current address. This claim lacks sufficient evidence for the defendant to defend. The claimant has still failed to provide necessary authorization from the landowner to issue parking charge notices on this land, or the transaction logs from the machine on the contravention date, a incorrectly entered VRN could of happened and we are only relying on the claimants “Word of Mouth”.

14. In addition to the 'parking charge', the Claimant's legal representatives, BWLegal, have artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding costs of £60 which has not actually been incurred by the Claimant, and which are artificially invented figures in an attempt to circumvent the Small Claims costs rules using double recovery.

15. In this matter the claimant is lying. No such “legal costs” were detailed on any of their signs at the location in question and the claimant is put to strict proof otherwise exhibit…….photos of signs.

16. Attached is a copy of POFA exhibit…., and the Claimant's postal Notice to Keeper (NTK) is clearly not compliant and makes no attempt to tell the keeper (as per para 8 - especially 8(2)f) that liability can be passed to them, POFA copy exhibit..........

17. Issuing two claims for matters that turn on exact same facts is certainly an abuse of process and no Claimant should have to face two duplicate hearings with all the disadvantage that will cause, in terms of loss of salary/leave and time taken across two days to have the same facts heard, with double costs at stake, and the chance of one case being found against him and one for, making a mockery of the court system and wasting the Court staff and Judge's time, too.

18. There is no crime or 'breach' of any law, by being the registered keeper of a car, and ignoring demands for money that bear all the hallmarks of a scam, relating to parking events where no tariff actually went unpaid, where there is no 'legitimate interest' excuse to disengage the penalty rule and where the keeper was not the driver and the Claimant has failed the legal requirements for keeper liability.

19. Barrister and parking law expert Henry Greenslade was the ‘Parking on Private Land Appeals’ (“POPLA”) Lead Adjudicator from 2012 – 2015. This is an independent appeals service offered by the British Parking Assosciation (“BPA”) and Excel was under that Trade Body at the time of the alleged contravention. I adduce as evidence (exhibit XXX) Mr Greenslade’s opinion in the POPLA Annual Report 2015 which confirms that there is no presumption in law that a keeper was the driver and that keepers do not have any legal obligation whatsoever, to name drivers to private parking companies. (Exhibit Popla 2015)


20. I refer to the case of Excel v Ian Lamoureux, C3DP56Q5 at Skipton 17/11/2016. The Judge was critical of the claimant’s attempts to hold the keeper liable. The judge suggested that the only way Mr Lamoureux could be held liable was if he was the driver and Excel could prove he was (which they could not). The judge stated “I think the claim against Mr Lamoureux is totally misconceived because it has no evidence that he is the driver and it seems to be relying on some assumption that the registered keeper is the driver because it is not seeking to rely on the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012”. (Exhibit Excel Vs Lamoureux )

21. I the defendant has recently visited the site in question for the purposes of gathering evidence for this case.

22. Even if I was the driver on the date in question, the signage on and around the site does not meet the British Parking Association (BPA) or the Independent Parking Committee (IPC) which the claimant is a member of.

23. I refer to the IPC code of practice which states signs should where practical be placed at the entrance to a site. The site in question has one entrance and exit with only one sign on the entrance/exit clearly visible when entering the site from one direction. (Exhibits - Photo ; IPC Code Of Practice

24. I also refer to the IPC code of practice which states the text should be of such size and in a font that can be easily read by the motorist. The site in questions signs do not meet this requirement. (Exhibit IPC Code)

25. I have reasonable belief that the claimant does not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name as they failed to supply the relevant information when requested. .



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

Redx

14 and 15 need changing to ALL of the ABUSE OF PROCESS paragraphs by CM, which include 2 judges names, DJ GRAND + DJ TAYLOR

robby29

Thank you will amend that.