County Court Defence Help Please

dollydoodar

nosferatu1001 said:

How about: write it out, and see
Prevaricating and obsessing isnt helping
Get. it. written. Then you can see if it needs trimming down or not. 

i have made a good start but i am going by a mammoth one and adding, omitting when i feel it neccessary after cross referencing with my defence. i went searching and came across a short one so i guess i was just wishful thinking... 

dollydoodar

they haven't referenced the beavis case for their signage and why would they, i would be shying away from it too. so i am wondering, can i still compare the signs?

nosferatu1001

Of cvourse you can - you can point out that the signs were only allowed as they were unusually prominent ,now  look at these, notice how this means they cant be seen, the core terms are hidden, too wordy etc. 
You use anything that helps you! 

Coupon-mad

dollydoodar said:

they haven't referenced the beavis case for their signage and why would they, i would be shying away from it too. so i am wondering, can i still compare the signs?

You must!  The Beavis case sets the bar for a clear sign.  I normally present a picture of the Beavis sign alongside the Claimant's sign (the Beavis case sign is EASY to Google and find - and measured about 65cm wide by 90cm high, I believe.  So put the CEL one alongside it on one single piece of paper.  It's good to expose how hidden the parking charge usually is.

For examples of a WS look at the one I wrote, near the end of @Bexon's thread.  And look at how @Chefdave and @keypulse separated the abuse of process argument into a Supplementary WS (a template you can copy except make sure the statement of truth is the NEW April 2020 one - Google!).

dollydoodar

Coupon-mad said:

dollydoodar said:

they haven't referenced the beavis case for their signage and why would they, i would be shying away from it too. so i am wondering, can i still compare the signs?

You must!  The Beavis case sets the bar for a clear sign.  I normally present a picture of the Beavis sign alongside the Claimant's sign (the Beavis case sign is EASY to Google and find - and measured about 65cm wide by 90cm high, I believe.  So put the CEL one alongside it on one single piece of paper.  It's good to expose how hidden the parking charge usually is.

For examples of a WS look at the one I wrote, near the end of @Bexon's thread.  And look at how @Chefdave and @keypulse separated the abuse of process argument into a Supplementary WS (a template you can copy except make sure the statement of truth is the NEW April 2020 one - Google!).

i have the sign at the ready, i just needed the go ahead...
this is what i've written today and i am so pleased as i can see an end to it now and i must thank you @nosferatu1001 for your strong words of encouragement, i needed them...
it still needs some tidying but the brain has stopped working as well as it was, advice greatly appreciated...

1. I am xxxx xxxxxx, of (address).  My defence is repeated and the facts below are true to the best of my knowledge and belief and I will say as follows:

2. In this statement I shall refer to examples in the Evidence pdf supplied with this statement, referring to page numbers where appropriate.

 

3. Day of Event.

3.1 On the date in question, xxxxxxxxx, myself and my carer were visiting Morrisons supermarket to buy my Christmas food shopping, I have attached the receipt (EX1). My vehicle (registration number*********) was being driven by my friend/carer as I cannot drive manually geared vehicles due to the pain I experience caused by my disability (EX2). I was forced to buy this vehicle at short notice in order to attend a holiday that had been a long time in the planning. I did not own the vehicle very long, selling it shortly after receiving this parking fine as I needed an automatic vehicle.

3.2 When we arrived at the car park, it appeared to be as it always had been. We parked in a disabled space and proceeded into the shopping centre to do my shopping. I had parked in this car park on a number of occasions and it had always been free for disabled visitors. I was unaware that another company had taken over the management of the car park and had changed the parking conditions. There were no apparent signs to advise about these recent changes.

3.3 I had planned to go to Morrisons to do my Christmas shopping that day and had I realised there had been changes to the parking conditions, I would have given the parking ticket stub to the cashier at the checkout to redeem £1.50 off the parking charge as I spent £124.29. My carer did not knowingly park my vehicle illegally that day and I too was unaware that I needed to purchase a ticket.

 

4. Ensuing Events.

4.1. On the 4th January 2018, I was shocked to receive a PCN in the post alleging that I had parked for 1 hour and 44 minutes and now owed Civil Enforcement Limited (CEL) £100.

4.2. I immediately called the manager at Morrisons who said he could not help me as the managing responsibility of the car park was outsourced to a private company.

4.3. I visited the site to investigate the signage which I found to be inadequate, unfortunately I did not take any photos but you can see very clearly from the photos supplied by CEL in their evidence, that their signage is not at all clear.

4.4. After an internet search, I discovered that I was not the only disabled patron caught out by Civil Enforcement’s takeover, in fact a local disability group started a campaign against CEL to reverse their decision to charge disabled patrons (EX3).

4.5. I appealed to POPLA who presumed wrongly that I was the driver of the vehicle and despite my objections to their presumptions, the Claimant decided to take me to court anyway.

4.6 I wrote a letter of complaint to POPLA as my health has suffered greatly due to the stress of having a court case over my head. I have struggled to deal with the case and it has taken many hours of work with study and admin to deal with it properly. They still insisted that I had been the driver.

 

5. Particulars of Claim or Abuse of process? Separate?

5.1 The Particulars of Claim include £82 for “additional costs”. I ask that the Claimant is put to strict proof that these additional charges are justified. I have reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £82 costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt. Any debt collection letters were a standard feature of a low cost business model and are already counted within the parking charge itself. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, Para 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100.?????

5.2 The particulars of the claim are erroneous as the Claimant states they are not relying on the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 as I have admitted to being the driver. They have come to this conclusion by way of my appeal, when I spoke in the first person. This is something I always do as I am disabled and I like to feel that I am still able bodied and independent. I was there and I did do the things I said in my appeal, albeit not with my own feet and hands on the pedals or steering wheel.

 

5.3. CEL insinuate that I felt entitled to park without paying which is not true. This is something I would never feel or ever do. I am not in the habit of receiving parking tickets, I always read parking conditions in unfamiliar places and I adhere to them.

 

 

6. Inadequate Signage

6.1. Upon entering the car park, there was a small sign which had “Phone & Pay” and “Pay at Machine” written on it and other smaller font which was illegible as I passed by in my vehicle (EX3).

6.2. There were no more signs visible from my vehicle as I drove to the spot where my vehicle was parked on the day in question.

6.3. There was one small sign visible in the vicinity of the disabled parking bay which was located inconveniently, up on a high kerb with a salt box in front of it, rendering it impossible to be viewed by a wheelchair user (EX4).

6.4. Although CEL claim their signs are clearly displayed, it is clear to see in a close up of the photo supplied by CEL, that the font is so small, CEL’S parking conditions are illegible, unless you are very close to the sign, specifically the part of the sign describing the £100 charge which is one of the smallest textual parts of the sign (EX5).

6.5 In the ‘ParkingEye v Beavis’ case, ParkingEye were found to have operated in line with the relevant parking operator’s code of practice. In this case the signage and operating practice of the Claimant fails on numerous counts to adhere to the standards laid out by the British Parking Association (BPA).

 

6.11 red hand rule?

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. 

 

 

I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

 

Yours faithfully,

Coupon-mad

Where is your supplementary witness statement about the £60 (or £70) add on?

Have you got their WS yet? 
Did you miss my post just now pulling apart Scott Wilson's template WS?  Read it...

dollydoodar

Coupon-mad said:

Where is your supplementary witness statement about the £60 (or £70) add on?

Have you got their WS yet? 
Did you miss my post just now pulling apart Scott Wilson's template WS?  Read it...

i've not seen anything about a supplementary WS yet. hopefully i'll see something in scott wilson's case. going to have a look now, thanks. also not seen their WS, not heard a thing from them in months. would it be on the mcol site? 

dollydoodar

so is the abuse of process the same as the the supplimentary WS or am i totally wrong?

Le_Kirk

dollydoodar said:

Coupon-mad said:

Where is your supplementary witness statement about the £60 (or £70) add on?
Have you got their WS yet? 
Did you miss my post just now pulling apart Scott Wilson's template WS?  Read it...

I've not seen anything about a supplementary WS yet. hopefully i'll see something in scott wilson's case. going to have a look now, thanks. also not seen their WS, not heard a thing from them in months. would it be on the mcol site? 

You write the supplementary WS, based on those already written in the forum and @Coupon-mad showed you some posters to check as they had already submitted supplementary WSs about the Abuse of Process.  Nothing is shown on MCOL once you get to WS stage.

I gave you this on 30th May.  Here is the @keypulse case: -
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6058392/link-parking-bw-legal-beaten-in-court/p1

Le_Kirk

dollydoodar said:

so is the abuse of process the same as the the supplimentary WS or am i totally wrong?

Have you found and read these yet?

Posted by @Coupon-mad:  For examples of a WS look at the one I wrote, near the end of @Bexon's thread.  And look at how @Chefdave and @keypulse separated the abuse of process argument into a Supplementary WS (a template you can copy except make sure the statement of truth is the NEW April 2020 one - Google!).