Court for tickets x 3 for parking at home address

StillSkint

https://ibb.co/vsR9v73

Coupon-mad

I am familiar enough with the small claims court to know that BW now have to provide a full witness statement and also pay their fees.

They will.

Make sure you do your own WS & evidence, and costs schedule as well, in time.

Nothing for my son, received a lettter from the court that they had until 27th to provide a reply to the defence - nothing so far.

They won't - because a reply to defence is not compulsory.

NEVER send back letters unopened.

StillSkint

Re my sons mail. He has now got an address in Australia and has sent that to BWL.
As we have had such a large volume of correspondence from BW legal I know what’s in them by the envelope and size. I am in no doubt they have dredged up more historic tickets for my son, I don’t see the point in opening them as I can’t address the issues for him - as discovered by the first claim which went ahead anyway. Now that BW has an address for him in Australia they should not still be sending letters here. The existing court claim correspondence from the court is coming here, had a letter the other day re awaiting a reply. Also, as he now has an Australian address, I am thinking they can’t issue any more small claims as that address is out of jurisdiction? If I get any more post here from St Katherine’s I will be sending back with a covering letter and proof that BWL have been informed of his addres change and I now have a print out from the council of household occupants and of the electoral roll, I’m not sure where that will end but don’t want another admin mess like the last claim.

I have also had a ticket in my name issued now by BWL - from over 3 years ago. I have started a different thread on that on pepipoo as to add it to this will get really complicated.

We are working on the witness statements for my partner’s 3 tickets - which the court have consolidated into one claim, will post it here for advice once completed.

nosferatu1001

As long as the Australian addres was noted as his ONLY address for service, and that they were INSTrUCTED to remove the old one.

The_Deep

I don’t see the point in opening them as I can’t address the issues for him - as discovered

The point is that you are aware of any nasties, and can inform him of them.

[Deleted User]

This is a mess. There are 3 pages of quasi-jurisdictional points but the o/p has ended up dealing with it anyway.

The PPC needed to be advised explicitly and in advance of an address for service. Only then can you argue proceedings have not been served. The PPC may seek to rely on the past conduct of an existing claim as a basis for service.

The PPC will need permission to serve out of the jurisdiction.

To avoid aggro for you, it is open to your son to accept service by email.

Otherwise for new claims you need to challenge jurisdiction but not on the basis that son is abroad (the claim is presumably definitely subject to English law if the car was parked in E&W) but on the basis of failed service.

Finally, if the PPC don't want to rely on PoFA that's fine, but there is no legal presumption of driver identity otherwise. The issue becomes one of evidence. The claimant's line appears to be that not naming another driver is sufficient by itself as you'd clearly have no reason not to name who's driving otherwise. Clearly it's for the court to make a finding of fact on that as to whether that presumption (theirs) is sufficient to prove their case.

StillSkint

My partner's witness statement posted below that he has compiled. We have a week before we have to send this off. Should he be quoting examples of previous court cases in this statement?



WITNESS STATEMENT

1. I, xxxxxx, of xxxxxxxxx am the defendant in these claims numbered xxxxxxx and the keeper of the car xxxxxx. The facts in this statement come from my personal knowledge and experiences.


2. The basis of the claims is that the defendant’s car registration number xxxxxxx was parked in a visitor’s bay and overstayed/returned in the car park area of xxxxxxxxxxxx on three occasions dated xx.xx.xx, xx.xx.xx and xx.xx.xx. This is indeed a private car park - the defendant resides at that address and has permission from the freeholder and the management company to enter and use the car park area. This permission is by way of an assured shorthold tenancy in name of the defendant’s partner, which allows access for occupants, their families and their guests to use the car parking. Within the car park there are a number of allocated parking bays, and some visitor bays (page **). There is one allocated numbered parking bay for xxxxxxx, which is in the name of the defendant’s partner as the tenancy holder with a permit supplied for this space.


3. The car park area is accessed via a keypad controlled gate (page **, pictures ** and **) which residents have the code for. This code changes regularly and supplied to residents. The claimant’s operatives do not have the code to enter the car park, and have to park their vehicle outside the gated area and use the pedestrian gate to enter the car park area. The claimant’s involvement on this car park area is supposedly to prevent parking by uninvited persons, for the benefit of the actual residents, their families and their invited guests. Instead the claimant’s carry out a predatory operation on those very people whose interests they are purportedly there to uphold.


4. The claimant does not own the land. Following a request to provide confirmation that they have the landowner’s permission to issue parking charges, enforcement and litigation against residents (page **, **) they have refused to provide proof of this, maintaining that it is a document which is under “legal privilege” (see BW Legal’s response to defence, page **). The defendant puts the claimant under strict proof to provide evidence to the court that the landowner has given them permission to enforce, pursue and litigate against residents of the building legitimately accessing the car parking area.


5. The Particulars of Claim lack specificity and are embarrassing. The defendant is prejudiced and is unable to prepare a full and complete defence. The defendant reserves the right to seek from the court permission to serve an amended defence should the claimant add to or expand his Particulars at a later stage of these proceedings and/or to limit the claimant only to the un-evidenced allegations in the Particulars. An attempt was made by the defendant to gain further details of these Particulars from the claimant’s legal representative in his defence, which resulted in an lengthy explanation of the shortcomings of the 1080 character limit of Money Claim Online (see BW Legal’s response to defence, page **), but still does not confirm the Particulars of the Claim. At no stage thus far has the claimant clarified whether the claim is for breach of contract, trespass or financial loss.


6. If the claimant is alleging breach of contract, the defendant puts the clamant on strict proof to provide a breakdown of the financial loss the claimant has suffered, and how each particular loss arose from the driver’s use of the car park at the keeper/s residence. If the claimant is alleging trespass, the defendant puts the claimant on strict proof to provide evidence that the driver was trespassing somewhere where the keeper resides and has permission for the keeper’s car to enter, and proof of the damages alleged and the calculation of this sum. If the claimant is alleging a “contractual fee”, the defendant puts the claimant on strict proof to provide the daily rate for parking and service provided for that fee as the visitor bays signs do not state a fee, and do not require a permit.


7. There is no mention whatsoever relating to visitor bays in the claimant’s terms and conditions (page **, picture 4), and visitors bay signs do not clearly state that there will be a penalty or charge of £100 for overstaying or returning within a 24 hour period (page **, picture **) –there is no mention of any charges contained on the visitor bay signage. There is no mention of visitor bays charges on the main terms and conditions sign sited at the visitor bay area (very poor condition – picture 4), this entirely relates to permit holders and not visitor bays and cannot constitute a contract, as the driver would be unable to enter a contract unless they knew the specific terms and conditions, and potential charges. It is not enough to expect the driver to guess what a parking charge could be for a visitor bay, even if they did make the leap of relating permit holder terms and conditions to those of visitor bay terms and conditions (of which there are none and a permit is not required).

The signage is ambiguous and misleading, and in very poor illegible condition – It is noted that on evidence provided by the claimant that the photograph of the signage provided is that of a good condition one, which is some distance and too small to read from the visitor bay (page **, picture **) rather than the signage which is sited immediately next to the visitor bays (page **, picture **); other pictures provided by the claimant do not have a clear legible picture of the visitor bay signage contents (page **, picture **). The defendant puts the claimant on strict proof to evidence where it explicitly states that there is a charge payable for overstaying/returning to visitor bays, and how much that charge will be.


8. The claimant cannot confirm or deny whether they were the driver due to even the most recent alleged breaches being well over one year ago. At least three other people had access to the car at that time as well as friends staying who had travelled by train who had use of the car over the holiday period. Furthermore, the defendant uses a work vehicle for his daily commute. On the balance of probability it is highly unlikely that the claimant was the driver of the car. The defendant is under no legal obligation to provide the names of potential other drivers to the claimant; in any case other drivers will also likely be unable to remember their daily movements from over a year or more ago. As the claimant states that they do not adhere to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (see BW Legal’s response to defence, page **) there is no legal presumption of driver identity. The defendant puts the claimant on strict proof to evidence that that the defendant was driving at the time of the alleged breaches.


9. The defendant puts the claimant on strict proof to provide details and verification of the calibration system of the hand held device/mobile phone / camera used by operatives, and what is in place to prevent the date/time stamp from being altered by the claimant’s operatives. During a conversation between the defendant and an ex colleague who is now a parking operative for the claimant the defendant was reliably informed that operatives receive £30 per parking charge notice issued (the previous amount in the defence reporting a fee of £10 was a typographical error). The defendant’s partner was present at this conversation and will attest to the veracity of this conversation. This provides a strong financial incentive for the operative to issue parking charge notices. Since discussing these parking charges with other residents, it has also been noted that operatives do not always work within appropriate and professional boundaries and can be unacceptably rude and aggressive towards residents. The defendant acknowledges that these comments are hearsay information and not evidence, however the defendant wishes to present this information to the court as part of the witness statement as it demonstrates the unprofessionalism and untrustworthiness of the claimant’s operating processes.


10. The claimant is attempting to recover legal costs from the defendant prior to judgement, which is not permitted on the small claim track. The initial claims for £100 now stand at and £241.62, £244.70 and £244.90; the amounts differ due to interest requested; as the claimant does not own the land, and has not incurred any actual financial loss or outlay it is unclear as to exactly why interest is requested. It is reported on the response to defence from BW Legal that the initial amount claimed was £100.00 for the parking charge notice and the claimant’s “initial legal costs of £60.00” (see BW Legal’s response to defence, page **). Taking the lead claim of F8DP51X0, the claimant requests £166.62 (an extra £6.62 added for interest) and then another £50.00 added on for “legal representative’s costs”, with the court fee of £25.00 this then comes to £241.62 – for a parking charge notice of £100. No calculation or explanation is given of these costs; this appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

The defendant would like to remind the claimant, that under Court Procedure Rules 27.14 it states:
Costs on the small claims track:
(2) The court may not order a party to pay a sum to another party in respect of that other party’s costs, fees and expenses, including those relating to an appeal, except
(a) the fixed costs attributable to issuing the claim which –
(i) are payable under Part 45; or
(ii) would be payable under Part 45 if that Part applied to the claim;

The amount requested by the claimant should not exceed the £100 parking charge notice and the £25.00 court fee - £125.00 in total, with interest at the judge’s discretion. The defendant puts the claimant on strict proof to provide a detailed breakdown of both costs to and financial losses incurred by the claimant due to the defendant’s car being parked on land that the defendant has permission to access.


11. This unwarranted harassment and baseless indiscriminate litigation, along with the excessive correspondence, unsolicited emails and phone calls from BW Legal has caused the defendant and his family significant stress, time and money. During research the defendant has discovered that BW-Legal is issuing automated claims for archived 'parking charges' in their thousands. It is clear that no checks have been made as to the facts of the alleged breach, signs or parking charge, in their undue haste to issue these claims. It has been obvious from the defendant’s correspondence with BW Legal that they had not even viewed the signage prior to issuing a claim; indeed signage photographs received from BW Legal as part of a subject access request are blurred and unreadable.


12. I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true.


Signed.....

Date......

Umkomaas

Your partner's WS should contain/append any evidence, including legal references, copies of transcripts and extracts from any lengthy legal findings that help you (no need to add pages upon pages of irrelevant elements, such as PoFA which, from memory, runs to >240 pages).

The NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #2 will lead you through what's needed.

KeithP

8. The claimant cannot confirm or deny whether they were the driver due to even the most recent alleged breaches being well over one year ago.

Surely it is the Defendant that cannot confirm or deny that?

A Witness Statement is usually written in the first person.
Have a look at some of the WS examples linked from post #2 of the NEWBIES thread.

StillSkint

Whoops typo, well spotted. Will have another look through #2 and change to first party.