Claim Form for UK Car Park Management / Gladstones

Le_Kirk

Yep, go to the NEWBIE sticky post # 2 where you will find advice and guidance on witness statements an cost schedules. Also search the forum using ring binder as your keyword(s). This will give you a format to use for the contents page, the evidence referencing and the overall presentation.

wilsonf1

Hi there! I have until December 23rd to submit my witness statement and any other evidence so I really want to try and get this sorted out this week if possible! I have spent so much time reading example Witness Statements today. I'd really appreciate my first draft being checked to make sure I'm going in the right direction! I really appreciate your feedback:

In the County Court at Chelmsford
Claim No. XXXXXX
Between
UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LTD (Claimant)
-and-
Mr XXX XXXXX (Defendant)

---

Witness Statement

---

1. I am XXXX Wilson, of MY ADDRESS, the Defendant in this matter. I will say as follows:

2. I visited the road of Mary Munnion Quarter, and parked my vehicle registration no, CAR REG on the road.

3. At no stage was I aware I was on private land or subject to enforceable terms and conditions.

4. I believe the Claimant’s signage to be completely inadequate and in breach of the IPC's Code of Practice.

5. Exhibit 2 is a screen shot of Google Maps Street View which shows the approach to Mary Munnion Quarter from Wood Street. As you can see from the approach, there is no sign warning a driver that you are entering private land that is subject to parking conditions.

6. Exhibit 3 is a screen shot of Google Maps Street View of driving into Mary Munnion Quarter. A small and inadequate sign relating to the parking conditions is high up on a lamp post, and in breach of the IPC's Code of Practice.

7. Exhibit 4 and 5 are photos taken by the Defendant which show the signage to be unlit and with small font and in breach of the IPC's Code of Practice.

8. Exhibit 1 is an email from First Port who have confirmed that parking restrictions were dropped for a period of time during which the alleged infringement took place. Thus aiding the idea that no parking restrictions were in place for visitors to the estate. I received this information from a resident of the estate who had told me there were no parking conditions enforced at that time, as per an instruction from First Port.

9. Upon receipt of a parking charge notice from the Claimant, I supplied them with this evidence, however they have elected to pursue this matter via litigation.

10. It is my position that, under the doctrine of promissory estoppel, the Claimant has no standing, or cause of action, to litigate in this matter.

11. 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



I have not heard from Gladstones for a while now. I got a copy of their DQ but that is it. Will 'Money Claims Online' portal tell me if they did or didn't pay the £25 fee by December 10th deadline?

KeithP

The first time you use it, you need to spell out what IPC means.

Para 8 - suggest that you add a few words of explanation of who First Port are.
Perhaps something like:

Exhibit 1 is an email from First Port, the property management company, who have confirmed...

Para 10 - I am not sure how "the doctrine of promissory estoppel" is relevant. Will you be able to explain how it is relevant to the Judge?


The MCOL claim history is not updated once the claim is transferred to the hearing court.

wilsonf1

KeithP wrote: »

The first time you use it, you need to spell out what IPC means.

Para 8 - suggest that you add a few words of explanation of who First Port are.
Perhaps something like:

Exhibit 1 is an email from First Port, the property management company, who have confirmed...

Para 10 - I am not sure how "the doctrine of promissory estoppel" is relevant. Will you be able to explain how it is relevant to the Judge?


The MCOL claim history is not updated once the claim is transferred to the hearing court.

Thanks Keith! I have made those tweaks and dropped para 10.

Is there anything else you suggest I add or print?

Coupon-mad

wilsonf1 wrote: »

Thanks Keith! I have made those tweaks and dropped para 10.

Is there anything else you suggest I add or print?

Same as here, there is LOADS more to read up on and use against UKCPM:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/76536227#Comment_76536227

You need a costs schedule and a supplementary WS about the added £60, plus all the exhibits that everyone files for these cases, as per the arguments in CEC16's thread.

wilsonf1

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Same as here, there is LOADS more to read up on and use against UKCPM:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/76536227#Comment_76536227

You need a costs schedule and a supplementary WS about the added £60, plus all the exhibits that everyone files for these cases, as per the arguments in CEC16's thread.

Thank you! That post has very specific action point that I will take this week. I have also extended my WS to include more references to the IPC which I believe highlights their breaches in signage.

Should I print the IPC pages I refer to as proof?

KeithP

wilsonf1 wrote: »

Should I print the IPC pages I refer to as proof?

You have two choices - to print or not to print.

For a couple of pages, surely you can work out the safe answer.

Coupon-mad

wilsonf1 wrote: »

Should I print the IPC pages I refer to as proof?

Yes, but IMHO it is more important that you include a Supplementary WS all about shooting down the double recovery of the added £60 and including the two statute law schedules and quotes from the Beavis case para 98, 193 and 198 (as per CEC16's thread).

Search the forum for Supplementary and copy one someone already put together!

Also add the stuff about Jack Chapman's signature and the SRA 'standards breach' investigation into Gladstones writing the WS and UKCPM never seeing them in some cases and certainly (provably) not having signed them.

wilsonf1

KeithP - I'm printing everything!

Coupon-Mad - actions I've taken & a couple of questions:

IPC printed and sections highlighted.

Highlighted: 6, 10, 14. The parking charge was in small writing and in breach of that 'unfair consumer notice' law.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/schedule/2/enacted


DUTY ON THE COURT to apply a test of fairness (aided by Schedule 2 and other parts of the Act):
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/section/71/enacted


Struggling with the Guidance on CRA. I've found this document, I think it's page 9 but I'm a bit unsure what I'm doing with this one!
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/450440/Unfair_Terms_Main_Guidance.pdf


I have the Beavis case below. Printing paras 98, 193 and 198.
https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2013-0280-judgment.pdf


Not sure what I'm doing with the Lay Reps RoA Order 1999?
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1999/1225/made

Is post 45 on this the thread the supplementary WS I should be using? It’s quite long and detailed - would it all apply?
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=76560264&postcount=45


There’s been a development. A brand new sign has been added to the entrance to the estate now that says 10mph and “You are entering a private road which is subject to parking restrictions” - I have emailed the management company for any documents that relate to the erecting of this sign. Does this bode well for me, as surely that comes across as an omission that the previous signage was not adequate to warn drivers?

14 days before my case is December 24th - should I be expecting to hear from Gladstones soon? Either a copy of their WS, or to try and ask me to settle out of court?

KeithP

wilsonf1 wrote: »

Does this bode well for me, as surely that comes across as an omission that the previous signage was not adequate to warn drivers?

That's exactly right.

Clearly the signage was inadequate before, else why would they add a new one?