UKCPM / Gladstones Witness Statement preparation

bmw30csl

By evidence do you mean the photos? For the boundary I have used the photo of their enforcement area and drawn the car parking position onto it. Will that suffice? The car position is clear from the picture they have of the car parked there.

As I did not reply to their original pcn's or the LBC how should I phrase the fact that I was not driving? I think my son drove me into town that day but cannot prove this.

Thanks for your help. I thought the WS needed to be short rather than going through their points one by one. I'll get onto that now.

bargepole

bmw30csl wrote: »

1. I, xxxx the Defendant in this matter, will say as follows:

This should be :

I am [NAME], of [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE], the Defendant in this matter, and will say as follows:

bmw30csl

I have amended that Bargepole. Here si the version I plan to send in tmrw. I have made the point about their self ticketing agreement not covering the area where the car is photographed as being parked as the first main point in paragraph 4. Thanks for all the help.

In the xxx County Court and Family Court
Claim No.xxx

Between
UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LIMITED (Claimant)
and
xxxx (Defendant)

Witness Statement

I, xxxx the Defendant in this matter, will say as follows:

1. 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 defence as already filed.

2. On 4th September 2018, I visited the xxx branch in xxxx. I was not the driver of the vehicle registration xxxx. I believe either my son or wife were driving but cannot state which with any certainty as this is a regular trip. I request to be driven due to the lack of nearby parking. The car was parked in the area to the rear of the bank by the driver.

3. Exhibit 1 shows the boundary of the enforcement area in the Self-Ticketing Agreement that the Claimant has with the Freeholder of the land. The car was parked outside of this area as shown. This boundary is shown in yellow in the Claimant’s Witness Statement on pages 8 & 10.

4. The entrance to the car park from the road is shown in Exhibit 2. When driving in the signs are not clearly displayed.

5. Exhibits 3 & 4 show a photograph of the signs that are in place that have very small text and are placed up high rather than at eye level. These allegedly form the basis of the Claimant’s litigation.

6. The Claimant is pointing the court to Elliott v Loake 1983 in paragraph 7 of their Witness Statement. This was a criminal rather than civil case. In that case the registered keeper was proven with evidence to be the only likely driver of the vehicle involved in a crash at the time. The Claimant states that the case holds that ‘the Registered Keeper of a vehicle may be presumed to have been the driver unless they sufficiently rebut this presumption.’ I believe this statement is included in the Witness Statement to intentional mislead readers. I am often driven by my son or wife and they are fully insured on this vehicle and often use it and as such the presumption that I am the driver is incorrect.

7. It is my position that the signage that the Claimant relies on to bring this Claim was forbidding and claiming for an alleged parking breach is therefore perverse. There was prohibition of parking except for ‘Authorised Vehicles Only’ and therefore no contract arose to give cause. The Claimant refers to ‘the Contract (i.e. the Sign)’ in paragraph 3 but the picture of the sign on page 9 of their Witness Statement shows it is forbidding rather than contractual.

8. 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
Print
Date

Coupon-mad

By evidence do you mean the photos?

Yes, and how about an aerial view from Google Street View where you can show the boundary and that the car was not within it?

And how about PCM v Bull, about prohibitive signage (see the Parking Prankster's case law pages for hat transcript). Not a precedent but a case that's on all fours with that sign, by the sound of it, and makes no offer to park.

And how about PACE v Lengyel, if the allegation is 'no permit' and you would be saying that the alleged contract is void for impossibility for people without a permit, using the un-managed section of the site who are not bound by any terms, and could only be considered a trespasser at best (but the claim is not pleaded in trespass, and even if it was, a parking firm not in possession cannot claim under the tort of trespass).

Le_Kirk

I believe this statement is included in the Witness Statement to intentional mislead readers.

Should be: -

I believe this statement is included in the Witness Statement to intentionally mislead readers.

bmw30csl

Judge threw case out and gave some costs on two counts 1) they provided no evidence of their right to ticket the area where the vehicle was parked 2) unclear signage. Thank you so much to all the contributors on this forum, it meant a lot to get that dealt with yesterday.

Le_Kirk

Well done on your win.

Coupon-mad

bmw30csl wrote: »

Judge threw case out and gave some costs on two counts 1) they provided no evidence of their right to ticket the area where the vehicle was parked 2) unclear signage. Thank you so much to all the contributors on this forum, it meant a lot to get that dealt with yesterday.

Yay1

Another one bites the dust!

WELL DONE! :T

Which court was this, please, and can you recall the name of the Judge?

Did the other side (Claimant) send a rep and did they argue it badly?

bmw30csl

Hi Coupon Mad, ukcpm had two cases listed. They did not send anyone. It was Judge White sitting at Watford. Thank you again!

bmw30csl

Got my cheque for costs through from Gladstones today!