Link Parking/BW Legal beaten in court.

keypulse

Here are the particulars of claim, should I adjust/delete paragraphs 3 (and 4)?

KeithP

3. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle;.

As the PoC do not say that, then yes of course that para needs adjustment/deleting.

Really surprised you needed to ask that.

keypulse

Coupon-mad wrote: »

You are certainly on the right track and that defence including the changes, is fine. Can you add the bit you said about other signs warning of deep water that were more prominent (were they?).

You can save that for WS stage, as you have mentioned it in #9 and can use the full words later.

Hi Coupon-mad, thanks for replying! I've adjusted that paragraph to mention the deep water signage and here's a pic of one of Link's signs (marked 'C')...


and a deep water warning sign around 3 metres to the right of Link's sign...

keypulse

KeithP wrote: »

As the PoC do not say that, then yes of course that para needs adjustment/deleting.

Really surprised you needed to ask that.

Fair point and I've deleted it, thanks.

Coupon-mad

I can see what you mean; you should say:

The Link sign is very low down, obscured completely by any car stopped in front of it, and is the same colour as the yellow, white & black 'deep water' warning signs positioned identically just feet away. And the Link sign is headed 'WARNING' giving no indication that it is communicating anything different at all, and certainly there are no transparent and prominent elements of a contract agreeing to pay money, and no parking charge in the largest font (unlike the signs in ParkingEye v 2015 UKSC 67).

keypulse

I received a response to my SAR from Link Parking last week. Besides a .pdf of email correspondence (my appeal, their rejection), a .pdf of the PCN and a .pdf of the NTK there are 6 photographs.

Each one is a low resolution .png thumbnail of around 50KB in size, they are useless to anyone. Here's what looks like a picture of one of their signs as an example.
EDIT: The original was so small I don't think the board software would even accept it so I've blown it up a tad!





Should they be giving me the original, full size photographs or are they allowed to just fob me off with thumbnails?

Coupon-mad

I think it's good if their evidence is that bad! Bodes well, so say nothing.

Read CEC16's thread, as there is a new issue to include at WS stage now, since the Southampton case.

keypulse

Coupon-mad wrote: »

I think it's good if their evidence is that bad! Bodes well, so say nothing.

Read CEC16's thread, as there is a new issue to include at WS stage now, since the Southampton case.

Yes I enjoyed reading that... very good work! :T


I was just wondering, if that is the strength of their evidence (and the photographs of my car are so bad the VRN isn't even legible) am I not kind of incriminating myself by supplying full size, high quality photographs of my car parked there on the material date? Or are they not allowed to use my evidence as their evidence?

Coupon-mad

Good point...then don't!

keypulse

According to MCOL my DQ was sent to me on the 29th November. I received the paper copy on the 3rd December and emailed a completed copy the next day to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk

There is still nothing showing on MCOL to indicate it's been received. Is this usual?