County Court Claim Form Gladstones/UKCPM

Le_Kirk

brentmeister2k said:

Johnersh - I am worried about this as well - although the guidance received on here initially was that the lack of specific argument for my situation didn't matter as generic arguments were sufficient  - I will add some pics shortly, but will caveat that these were taken well over a year after the incident and so cannot be sure they were the same on the date. I can include some pics from the claimants witness statement of the plan etc that may help.

Only if it helps you.

Redx

brentmeister2k said:

Thanks both for eeponses -

Redx - The guidance I read said assume everything is normal until you hear otherwise, I have had nothing from the court to advise on any COVID 19 measures, I'm assuming it will be via telephone and I will receive correspondence of this soon. I am looking  for the threads you mention but can't locate.

you may only hear about it a couple of days before, so you need to be forewarned and forearmed

not coming here for 4 months , especially due to covid radically changing things, can harm your chances of winning , even legal eagles are having to learn and adapt

readf that telephone hearings thread by coupon mad, including all of her advice and the bargepole post with the court list plus all of his posts too, dont leave it to chance, thats a fools errand and I am appalled if you have not yet read it

if it is by telephone , then printing and handing in may be pointless as pointed out in the posts by coupon mad and bargepole, hence my replies , find it , read it

CHECK, CHECK , CHECK,

Le_Kirk

Redx said:

brentmeister2k said:

Thanks both for responses -
Redx - The guidance I read said assume everything is normal until you hear otherwise, I have had nothing from the court to advise on any COVID 19 measures, I'm assuming it will be via telephone and I will receive correspondence of this soon. I am looking  for the threads you mention but can't locate.

read that telephone hearings thread by coupon mad, including all of her advice and the bargepole post with the court list, don't leave it to chance, that's a fools errand

Here is the telephone hearings thread from @Coupon-mad: -

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6130456/telephone-hearings-re-parking-firm-claims-can-we-all-discuss-strategy-and-outcomes-here/p1

brentmeister2k

I've attached a selection of pics I took at the site titled pic 1 - pic 6.
I've also included a scan of some pages of the claimants ws, it includes some plans. of the site and some text pages of there WS.
Finally I've included an image of a sign provided by UKPCM that has a pertinent difference to the sigange I photo's the pic that they have provided - titled UKPCM sign pic has some added text next to 4 hours free parking which states in red - FREE TICKET MUST BE DISPLAYED - In my pic taken in late 2019 - this was not included - this is included as attachment pic 3.
This seems to be relevant to my case, I'd welcome your opinions and how I should reference this?

Finally in the doc titled UKPCM bits I've included some text pages from their WS as they have made a couple of points that worry me and I'd again welcome sme guidance specifically points 18, 24/25 and 34/35.

Thanks again chaps. 

brentmeister2k

One other point that may or may not be relevant here, I received the WItness statement on 27th April, it was dated 17th April, but it was required by court by 23rd April.
Just wondering if court received at same date as me then potentially received late. - Probably being a bit too hopeful with that.
Will read through suggested articles this evening once kids are down and I have some mental capacity.

brentmeister2k

Thanks for the link and  Have followed advise and read the thread from coupon mad and bargepole and as mine is at Canterbury Combined court this is listed as:
Open Court - No
Suspended Court - No
Staffed Courts - Yes

I presume that this means it will be by telephone and so not much point sending in WS. However in the absence of some instructions from the court it seems best to get the required docs in. Does it not?

Otherwise feel capable of following the guidance and putting it all into an email etc. as per guidance there.

Johnersh

Jeez para 18 is deeply condescending (but adds.nothing). Its a general assertion that use of an Internet template must mean you don't know what you're doing.  The irony of that is that the claimants statement is itself fairly generic to cases of this nature. 

At paras 24/25 one can say that Beavis is a similar case. It's free parking at a commercial site; I'd agree. It's para 190 of the Beavis judgment. 

At paras 34/35 those are the court rules - they are entitled to seek those fixed costs, which include court fees. What the statement denies (but does not address at all) is the notional £60 or so bolted on to the claim. That is concerning because:

1. It's the same sum added in each case. That being the case its in essence a form of liquidated damage that can be specified in contract (the sign) but isn't. It's unenforceable 

2. The debt collection services are no win/no fee. No costs have been incurred. Its not a recovery of a cost

3. They charge interest on it, but its not an actual cost incurred, so that calculation is also flawed.

4. This point is the abuse of process that has seen entire claims struck out by the courts

I would suggest that even in the event of a win by the ppc (and even if the court doesn't strike) they should as a minimum be debarred from recovering any costs. 

Johnersh

Looking at the signs, we need to know what signs came first.

The last (ukcpm) photo appears to show an old sign with added text. Note that the word free has no asterisk, but they have needed to add clarifying wording in the form of a sticker. Is it possible that those signs were present when you parked, but without the sticker? 

The other signs look newer. Those signs clearly have an asterisk next to the word free and a clarification below it that a ticket must always be displayed.  One could argue that this is prima facie evidence that the original signs were inadequate and unclear.

I hasten to add this needs to be your evidence of fact. I know neither carpark nor which signs were applicable at the time. 

brentmeister2k

Johnersh, I received the PCN in 2018, I can't honestly say whether the additional text was present at the time however think it wasn't as it wouldve jumped out more clearly at the time and been very obvious. I visited in late 2019 to take photos for evidence which is where the pic3 file comes from which contains no additional text. This makes me feel that in 2018 the text would also not have been there. I have not visited the site other than on these occasions so difficult to say much more.

The pic that includes the additional text I've only seen in the WS of UKPCM - it's not dated - so makes me think its a more recent addition which must help my case.

Coupon-mad

So that is what you say, that the evidence shows the signs changed (explain how, point to their own evidence) and that suggests the first signs were inadequate.

Have you read all the UKCPM Jack Chapman threads and have complained to the SRA and sent them this WS from Gladstones?