County Court Claim - VCS

Not_so_old_oldie

Bananasparking. Can the WS be put online?
I have the very same situation (driver parked for 71 minutes in this same car park). I have photo evidence that the number of signs has increased since the incident.
My court date is 30th Jan so WS must be produced by 16th Jan at latest.

Bananasparking

Yes

dropbox.com/s/8yegmlleav4fnog/Witness%20Statement%20Dec%2019.pdf?dl=0

I think that should be it. You'll need to add back in the https:// and www.

I have cut out the front page and the preamble to remove personal details and some of the exhibits went squint because of different software on my laptop so I deleted them, but the bulk is there.

I know every case is different, but based on yesterday I would go more into the details of why the signs are rubbish if I was writing it again.

We didn't have evidence of a change in number of signs, but the photographs they provided of the signs were poor, they were cropped to remove bits and the photos of the signs in situ were such low quality there was nothing to see on them. If we'd had their witness statement before writing ours we'd have made more of that.

They also talked about a privacy notice and signs on the ticket machine that they tried to rely on for saying a grace period doesn't apply, but they couldn't rely on it since they hadn't supplied it in their evidence and I don't have a good enough memory to know whether they were making that up or not.

The judge was satisfied they had a valid contract, despite the really poor photocopy of their contract with the landowner expiring in 2013. He had also clearly read our attempt for costs for unreasonable behaviour and considered it, but didn't award it.

nosferatu1001

https://dropbox.com/s/8yegmlleav4fnog/Witness%20Statement%20Dec%2019.pdf?dl=0

Notsoold - it must be *served* by the 16th, not produced by.

Snakes_Belly

Very well done. It's good when people who have had issues with the same car park help each other.

Snakes_Belly

Just looked at the WS and there are others on this forum who have won for claims relating to this car park. I think it must be a hot spot. In the discussions during the passing of Sir Greg Knights PMB, he did say that they would look to monitor hot spots.

Bananasparking

I hope they do. Its would not be possible to prove this but the only reason I can see for them changing from 2 hours free to the current scheme is to increase the number of parking charges they can issue by making the terms and conditions harder to comply with.

Not_so_old_oldie

Top work Bananas. Thank you for sharing.
Apart from the preamble my statement is very much like yours, including the photos although mine includes one from this week from the viewpoint of the driver coming down Ecclesall Road and turning in to demonstrate how difficult it would be to see that sign when crossing traffic during the day

Bananasparking

I have all my fingers crossed for you for your court date and will keep an eye on your thread for the outcome.

Snakes_Belly

Apart from the preamble my statement is very much like yours, including the photos although mine includes one from this week from the viewpoint of the driver coming down Ecclesall Road and turning in to demonstrate how difficult it would be to see that sign when crossing traffic during the day

That will completely knock a hole in the case that they cite in their WS. Thornton v Shoe lane relates to a barrier car park in which the car stops at the barrier and the driver sees the sign which forms the contract. They also cite Vine v Waltham Forest which is taken totally out of context.

THX-1-1-3-8

Id just like to thank you for uploading your WS. Ive used it alongside my own.

Very glad to see VCS / Excel taking a hammering at that parking place. Its very local to me and I use it regularly.

Having my own spat with them but that WS and others is exceedingly useful.

Note - they have not updated the signage on the site as of 12/01 - I was there today...