clam form - defence- help needed - ACE security services - Gladstone's

kanjar13

my apologies. I googled IPC CoP and obviously must have found an old CoP from pre-2016

I've changed the para to:
3.4 International Parking Community (IPC) Code of Practice (14 Predatory Tactics 14.1 – See EX8)

KeithP

4. Are gladstones going to be providing their own witness statement or do they not have to do that? If they are then will I be getting a copy of it?

The Claimant will also be filing and serving a Witness Statement. They have the same target date that you have and they will send you a copy.

5. Is WS best posted or can I email it?

The guidance usually given here is to hand deliver your WS and evidence to the court neatly presented in a paginated and indexed folder. It is your local County Court, isn't it?

Yes you can email it, but you are giving up control of the presentation to someone who possibly doesn't have the same interest in it that you have. Will they even get the pages in order? Who knows. Relying on colour photos? Forget that if the court print it.

Remember to send a copy to the Claimant. Email is fine for that.

kanjar13

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT xxxxxxxx
CLAIM No. xxxxx

Between:

PACE RECOVERY AND STORAGE LIMITED (TRADING AS ACE SECURITY SERVICES (Claimant)

- and -

MR x x Of xx xxxx xxxxx (Defendant)

__________________________________________________________________________________
WITNESS STATEMENT – Mr xxx xxx
__________________________________________________________________________________

1. Preliminary

1.1 I, xxx xxxxx, of xxxxx xxxxxxx am the Registered Keeper in this case. I am unrepresented, with no experience of court procedures. If I do not set out documents in the correct way, I trust the court will excuse my inexperience.

1.2 Attached to this statement is a bundle of documents marked EX1, EX2 etc., to which I will refer.

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

1.4 The claim refers to an incident involving vehicle xxxx on xxxxxx at the location of Xx xx, London.

1.5 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 already submitted.

2. Sequence of Events

2.1 I was not the driver on the day the alleged contravention took place but I have been in contact with the driver and the sequence of events reflects what happened on the day. I have also visited the place where my vehicle was parked around the same time the PCN occurred, took pictures of signage and surrounding area in order to give an adequate Witness Statement.

2.2 On 21st of May 2018 my vehicle was parked in a marked visitor bay allocated to guest visiting Xx xx. The vehicle was de facto “authorised” as a visitor and permitted to park at Xx xx. (See Exhibit EX1 - picture of a permit from the claimant’s bundle). The permit shows 21/05 and the PCN was given out after midnight so, essentially, 01/01 at 00:00 and this is, in my opinion, simply predatory. The fact that a permit was obtained shows that the driver was a genuine visitor, wasn’t trespassing and had no ill intentions.

2.3 Over 1 month after this occurred, I received correspondence “Notice to Keeper” from the Claimant (letter dated 25 June 2018 Exhibit EX2 NTK) demanding “Payment for Charge Notice” is overdue for “Invalid Permit”. This was the first communication I had received on the matter and the letter was very vague.

2.4 I sent a reply letter (Exhibit EX3 Add first letter) on the 3rd July 2018 to the Claimant stating that I was the registered keeper and suggested that they cancel this notice as no evidence was included.

2.5 The Claimant responded with another letter (Exhibit EX4) stating the driver called on the day of the Charge Notice and I had lost the right to appeal. I as the registered keeper was not aware the driver had called the Claimant. Having had no other correspondence from the Claimant I had assumed the matter closed.

2.6 On the 6th September I received a “LETTER BEFORE CLAIM” from the Claimant’s solicitors (See Exhibit EX5) seeking recovery of debt for £160. The letter stated additional costs claimed by the claimant for the time spent and resources facilitating the recovery of the charge. I responded to this Letter of claim (See Exhibit EX6) stating that I did not agree I owed this debt. I also asked that they provide evidence of who is the owner of the car park, a copy of the contract between the claimant and owner and planning and advertising consent for the signage and all evidence held.

2.7 The Claimant’s solicitor did not respond to my 1st letter but sent a 2nd “LETTER BEFORE CLAIM” on the xxxx, (See Exhibit EX7) again asking to pay this charge. I responded again via a letter and the Claimant’s Solicitors website that I was still waiting for a response from my first letter asking for the same information stated in the first letter (2nd letter See Exhibit EX8). They finally responded via email on the xxxxx (Exhibit EX9 )stating that they had attached a bundle, which the claimant would rely on in court and does not include details of the owner or contract between their client (the Claimant) and landowner and planning applications is irrelevant to this charge. The Claimant’s solicitor also stated there would be no further correspondence and documentation will not be provided at this stage. There was NO bundle attached, I replied stating no bundle was attached, the claimants Solicitor did not respond until the xxxxxx with the Bundle.

3. Inadequate Signage

3.1 Upon later investigation I drove to Xx xx, I could not see any clear or lit signage from my vehicle clearly indicating the parking restrictions (See Exhibit EX10 - picture entering Xx xx at 12am). The signs weren’t clearly visible when entering the development. When I stopped and parked my vehicle, there were no signs adjacent to the space, that could possibly be read from my vehicle. I believe that in the case of “Vine vs London Borough of Waltham Forest” (See Exhibit EX11) the Court of Appeal ruled that a person cannot be presumed bound by terms and conditions on signage that they have not seen. In this case, which was found in favour of the motorist, the signage was deemed insufficient because there was no signage directly adjacent to the Appellant’s parking bay and the only signage that was displayed could not have been read from within the vehicle when parking, as in the case here (See Exhibit E12 - Picture from inside car looking at the sign).

3.2 When reviewing the signage at Xx xx it is difficult to read especially at night. A key factor in the case of “ParkingEye vs Beavis” (See Exhibit EX13) was that the relevant signs were “large, prominent and legible so that any reasonable user of the car park would be aware of their existence and nature” and that “the charge is prominently displayed in large letters and at frequent intervals within it”. That is not the case here. (Exhibit EX14 picture of the sign from street level evidence)

3.3 The International Parking Community (IPC) Code of Practice (14 Predatory Tactics 14.1 – (See EX15) states ‘You must not use predatory or misleading tactics to lure drivers into incurring parking charges.’ Such instances will be viewed as a serious instance of non-compliance’. The signage as you enter Xx xx isn’t clearly visible, especially to someone entering at night and in a moving vehicle, it can be deemed predatory and opportunistic given out tickets to genuine vistors.

4 Declaration

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

kanjar13

is this heading in the right direction now?
have bought a folder and will organise all my exhibits tomorrow and then hopefully deliver it on Wednesday and then I have roughly three weeks to prepare but I'm not getting my hopes up having read reviews of the county court on gold old google!

KeithP

Don't deliver your WS too early otherwise you just give the Claimant more time to pull apart your WS in theirs.

Leave it as late as you can, obviously not missing any deadline, hoping to be able to [STRIKE]trash their WS[/STRIKE] include criticism of their WS in yours.

kanjar13

Ok, the problem is we’re going away on Wednesday so can’t do it after that
Wednesday is basically the latest we can deliver it ourselves. Or could we get someone else to deliver it for us?

kanjar13

Another question, say we lose, can the amount I gotta pay go up (circa £250 atm)?

KeithP

Anyone can deliver your WS and evidence to the court, but of course the Defendant will need to sign it.

If you lose, you will be challenging their costs - like everyone else does. You are reading other threads aren't you?
If you lose you should be abler to argue costs down so total payable is around or less than £200.

Le_Kirk

I am still confused about your point 2.2 concerning the validity of the permit. You state the permit shows 21/05 but what date/time does the validity expire. I am (and I am sure the judge would be) confused around the: -

PCN was given out after midnight so, essentially, 01/01 at 00:00

This needs to be explained more fully so that the judge can understand what you mean. If you are saying that the permit expired at midnight and the PCN was issued after midnight, surely you are arguing the claimant's case for them. More clarity required here.

kanjar13

Le_Kirk wrote: »

I am still confused about your point 2.2 concerning the validity of the permit. You state the permit shows 21/05 but what date/time does the validity expire. I am (and I am sure the judge would be) confused around the: -
This needs to be explained more fully so that the judge can understand what you mean. If you are saying that the permit expired at midnight and the PCN was issued after midnight, surely you are arguing the claimant's case for them. More clarity required here.

the permit was filled in by hand by the concierge and was valid from 21/05 to 21/05
the signage wasn't very well lit but stated 24hr enforcement, the driver didn't even see the sign

I updated 2.2 but not sure it makes any sense anymore (I merged 2.2 with 3.3)

2.2 On 21st of May 2018 my vehicle was parked in a marked visitor bay allocated to guest visiting Xx xx. The vehicle was de facto “authorised” as a visitor and permitted to park at Xx xx. (See Exhibit EX1 - picture of a permit from the claimant’s bundle). The driver believed it would cover the vehicle for the visit and would perhaps need a new permit from 8am for a new day. No driver expects to be ticketed at 1am when displaying a valid permit showing they had the right to be there. The issuing of ticketing in the early hours at 12:54am when a visitor was displaying a permit from that day, is nothing short or predatory by knowingly seeking out and ticketing a genuine visitor, contrary to the The International Parking Community (IPC) Code of Practice (14 Predatory Tactics – please see EX15), which states ‘You must not use predatory or misleading tactics to lure drivers into incurring parking charges.’ Such instances will be viewed as a serious instance of non-compliance’. The signage as you enter Xx xx isn’t clearly visible, especially to someone entering at night and in a moving vehicle and as stated before, it can be deemed predatory and opportunistic given out tickets to genuine vistors.