Gladstones Court Claim Documents - incorrect particulars

Umkomaas

Belt and braces, get it done today.

It's worth going the full mile, because even if you lose at court, the costs will be no greater than if you stump up now. And there's a very good chance you might not only be paying nothing at all if you win, but you could claim around £100 from the claimant.

Jeff1279

Hi All,

How's this for a wtiness statement (have deliberately removed location and names. The picutres I'll attach are slam dunks:

In the County Court at xxxxxx
Claim No.

Between

UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LTD (Claimant)

and

MR xxxxxxx (Defendant)


WITNESS STATEMENT



I, xxxxx, of xxxxxx, London xxxxxx, will say as follows:

I am the Defendant in this matter. Attached to this statement is a paginated bundle of documents marked AB1 to which I will refer.

Before I describe what happened on the day my wife stopped momentarily on the Meridian South site, I confirm that the essence of my defence in this claim is that:

A. My wife did not park but was stopped. UK Car Park Management, after the date of the alleged contravention, realised their signs did not cover this circumstance and subsequently changed them.
B. I intend to use Jopson vs Homeguard in which the judge clearly defines what constitutes a definition of “parking” which this short stop does not.
C. The claimant now alleges in their witness statement that where my wife was stopped was not authorised for parking. Regardless that she was not parked, but stopped, I will show using the claimant’s own evidence that it is an area authorised for parking, including both the supplied picture of the car and the sign they have chosen to show being from the actual space within which the car was stopped.
D. Even if she did breach the terms, the Claimant is obliged by the compulsory Code of Practice of its own Accredited Trade Association to apply separate grace periods of at least 10 minutes at the start and end of each period of parking to allow for potential delays in finding a space, exiting the car park and to allow time for drivers to find and read the terms and conditions offered. As my wife was stopped for less than 1 minute before the picture used in the claimant’s evidence was taken, this was not possible.


On the 24th August 2017 my wife drove to the xxxxxxxx Development to utilise the cash machine provided there. As she had children in the car, she stopped momentarily (less than 1 minute) opposite the cash machine in a safe space in the central parking area.

The company managing the xxxxxx space had recently changed, with Google Earth showing another company’s signs as of May 2017, only 3 months prior. (Evidence A1). There was no notification of this change.

On the day in question, it would appear that a parking attendant on seeing my wife stopped, took a picture of the vehicle within seconds of her doing so. She then drove out of xxxxx xxxx, exiting on to xxxxxx.

In Jopson vs Homeguard, a key matter upon which the case rested was whether the defendant was parked or stopped.

The judge in that case defined not being parked as such:

“The concept of parking, as opposed to stopping, is that of leaving a car for some duration of time beyond that needed for getting in or out of it, loading or unloading it, and perhaps coping with some vicissitude of short duration, such as changing a wheel in the event of a
puncture. Merely to stop a vehicle cannot be to park it; otherwise traffic jams would consist of lines of parked cars.”

I have supplied the full wording in Evidence A2. The claimant lost this case, and it appears to be considered separate to Beavis vs Parkingeye.

In this case, as my wife was stopped for under 1 minute, the above definition of stopping should apply.

UK Car Park Management realised that this was not covered under the terms of parking, and post the date of the alleged contravention modified their signs at xxxxx to say “No Stopping/waiting”.

The claimants own evidence supplied (v. photographs of the incident) shows the sign as at the time my wife stopped not carrying this additional wording.

I have supplied an image taken from more recently showing the signs complete with alteration. (Evidence A3).

Although not relevant, the claimant claims that the area my wife was stopped was not marked for parking. Their own evidence (v. photographs of the incident) show the sign for the area, and white parking lines are visible in the photograph of the car.

I have also marked on their evidence, (iii. Site Plan) where the car was stopped, which their own plan marks as a parking spot.

The Court is invited to dismiss the claim and to award my costs of attendance at the hearing, such as are allowable pursuant to CPR 27.14.

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


Signature of Defendant:


Name:
Date:

Redx

Add abuse of process as an exhibit and reference it in the WS , see coupon made post #14 in the beamerguy thread

Add the CRA 2015 too and add extracts as an exhibit

Add your costs schedule as another exhibit and reference it

beamerguy

As Redx says above ^^^

You must throw the kitchen sink at this will bunch

ABUSE OF PROCESS
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6014081/abuse-of-process-district-judge-tells-bwlegal

POST #14 by coupon-mad
She has written this for you to use and it really is a SCAM BUSTER

1505grandad

Are all the paras in the doc to be filed at Court sequentially numbered?

Jeff1279

How's this for revised WS with abuse of process?

In the County Court at xxxxxxxx, Claim No.

Between

UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LTD (Claimant)

and

xxxxxxx (Defendant)


WITNESS STATEMENT



I, xxxx, of xxxxx, will say as follows:

I am the Defendant in this matter. Attached to this statement is a paginated bundle of documents marked AB1 to which I will refer.

Before I describe what happened on the day my wife stopped momentarily on the Meridian South site, I confirm that the essence of my defence in this claim is that:

A. My wife did not park, but was stopped. UK Car Park Management, after the date of the alleged contravention, realised their signs did not cover this circumstance and subsequently changed them.

B. I intend to use Jopson vs Homeguard in which the judge clearly defines what constitutes as a definition of “parking” which this short stop does not.

C. The claimant now alleges in their witness statement that where my wife was stopped was not authorised for parking. Regardless that she was not parked, but stopped, I will show using the claimant’s own evidence that it is an area authorised for parking, including both the supplied picture of the car and the sign they have chosen to show being from the actual space within which the car was stopped.

D. Even if she did breach the terms, the Claimant is obliged by the compulsory Code of Practice of its own Accredited Trade Association to apply separate grace periods of at least 10 minutes at the start and end of each period of parking to allow for potential delays in finding a space, exiting the car park and to allow time for drivers to find and read the terms and conditions offered. As my wife was stopped for less than 1 minute before the picture used in claimants evidence was taken, this was not possible.

E. I also intend to claim Abuse of Process as per F0DP201T, District Judge Taylor, Southampton Court, 10th June 2019, and subsequent ruling on the 11th November 2019 in court at Southampton, in relation to the additional costs imposed the claimant.



1. On the 24th August 2017 my wife drove to the xxxx Development to utilise the cash machine provided there. As she had children in the car, she stopped momentarily (less than 1 minute) opposite the cash machine in a safe space in the central parking area.

2. The company managing the xxxx it had recently changed with Google Earth showing another company’s signs as of May 2017, only 3 months prior. (Evidence A1). There was no notification of this change.

3. On the day in question, it would appear that a parking attendant on seeing my wife stopped, took a picture of the vehicle within seconds of her doing so. She then drove out of xxx, exiting on to xxxx.

In Jopson vs Homeguard, a key matter upon which the case rested was whether the defendant was parked or stopped.

The judge in that case defined not being parked as such:
“The concept of parking, as opposed to stopping, is that of leaving a car for some duration of time beyond that needed for getting in or out of it, loading or unloading it, and perhaps coping with some vicissitude of short duration, such as changing a wheel in the event of a puncture. Merely to stop a vehicle cannot be to park it; otherwise traffic jams would consist of lines of parked cars.”

I have supplied the full wording in Evidence A2. The claimant lost this case, and it appears to be considered separate to Beavis vs Parkingeye.


4. In this case, as my wife was stopped for under 1 minute, the above definition of stopping should apply.UK Car Park Management realised that this was not covered under the terms of parking, and post the date of the alleged contravention modified their signs at Meridian South to say “No Stopping/waiting”. The claimants own evidence supplied (v. photographs of the incident) shows the sign as at the time my wife stopped. I have supplied an image taken from more recently showing the signs complete with the alteration. (Evidence A3).

5. Although not relevant, the claimant claims that the area my wife was stopped was not marked for parking, their own evidence (v. photographs of the incident) show the sign for the area, and white parking lines are visible in the photograph of the car. I have also marked on their evidence (iii. Site Plan) where the car was stopped, which their own plan marks as a parking spot.

6. 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,



The Court is invited to dismiss the claim and to award my costs of attendance at the hearing, such as are allowable pursuant to CPR 27.14.

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


Signature of Defendant:


Name:
Date:

Umkomaas

You need to do a supplementary Witness Statement (submitted with your main WS) to cover Abuse of Process and lift the words, verbatim, produced by Coupon-mad in post #14 of beamerguy's Abuse of Process thread.

Coupon-mad

Search the forum for the word supplementary and you will have one someone did earlier, within minutes. Don't rush this, get it in TOMORROW not today, it will make little difference, but do not draw the lateness to anyone's attention.

You are not stuffed, people do this late ALL THE TIME!

Please also search the forum for Jack Chapman signature, now (it's important for a UKCPM one!) and add a point about that to your WS (covered in half a dozen threads).

And add in exhibits, all numbered, (e.g. Jopson transcript and the Consumer Rights Act Sch2 and POFA Sch4) but also the IPC CoP page that talks about the requirement for extra signs where restrictions are new or changed. It's in the IPC CoP and it can be searched for the word 'new' or 'restriction' and you should find it in one minute (CONTROL & F on your keyboard when searching a document for a word, in case you are no aware of this).

You should get this done tonight with our help.

Also then search the forum for Costs Schedule as you need to file that too, so that you can claim your costs at the end of the hearing.

Jeff1279

Hi There - so I should pull paragraphs from this for the Jack Chapman signature issue (their WS is fake signed by "him"

he WS appear to not actually be signed by UKCPM, and a formal complaint has already been sent to the SRA about a similar UKCPM case where this exact same UKCPM 'electronic signature' was exposed by a lay representative last month, to be a facsimile and that UKCPM could not have signed the statement on the date stated under the facsimile signature, or at all.

In the two cases in October, statements purported to have been signed by 'Jack Chapman', an employee of the Claimant Company, could not have been. A comparison of the signatures on these two statements showed that the signatures are 100% identical in every respect, down to the last pixel. It was highly improbable, if not impossible, that any person would sign his name twice in a completely identical manner on two separate occasions, three months apart.

The complaint to the SRA continued: ''The only possible conclusion to be drawn from this, is that Gladstones have copied, traced, or otherwise forged Mr Chapman's signature, and that in fact Mr Chapman has never seen or signed these statements. This is particularly relevant in the case of the second statement, which was emailed to the Defendant on the day after it was created. Gladstones are based in Knutsford, Cheshire, whereas the Claimant company are situated in West Sussex. Unless they couriered it by helicopter, it is clear that Mr Chapman could not have signed it.

I have numbered exhibits - will find the paragraph about sign changes now.
Looking forward to the costs schedule. I have a suitably high daily rate....

Jeff1279

I have now added in the sections on abuse, the IPC COP and also a costs schedule. All evidence is numbered correctly etc etc.

How's it look? I know I can email it Gladstones but how do I sent it to court? Post it, or is it better to courier it given time is short?!

Forum is saying it's too long now - so here's a gdrive link:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YR4pN8-xzM2yzLpO_ADPk3xfa6fQzPS3YzYF6hwF8gA/edit?usp=sharing