Court Date Early Jan - Gladstones

5thAttemptAtUserName

I couldn't sleep on Christmas day because of this ticket. I've been trying to push it to the back of my mind. I hate it, frankly, and want it all to go away (obviously the intended effect)

Thanks for suggesting writing to my MP, I will now (I can't seem to find how to send the other stuff, so I will try this)

5thAttemptAtUserName

I DID submit a Witness Statement!

I did not send it to the Claimant, BUT they have responded to it and quoted it.
Here it is:

7th August 2019

Dear Sir,
Horizon Parking Limited have alleged that I parked without sufficient ticket purchase on Fore Street Totnes on the 25.11.2017, in my vehicle; reg xxxxxxxx.

I contest this accusation as I have never received a ticket in this location. Ever.

I don’t park in this location (because I am terrible at parallel parking) and should very much like to see evidence of me parking on this street. If available I will present this evidence to the police, as the driver was categorically not me and did not have my consent to use xxxxxxxx.

Furthermore, Fore Street Totnes’ parking is managed and controlled not by a private company but by South Hams District Council.

I have received numerous letters demanding money for something I haven’t done. I would like an apology from Horizon Parking Limited, and I look forward to this unfounded hassle being dealt with in an appropriate manner.

Yours sincerely,

Umkomaas

Please contact the local council and ask them to confirm in writing that the street is part of the public highway and subject to statutory control.

bargepole

5thAttemptAtUserName wrote: »

I DID submit a Witness Statement!

I did not send it to the Claimant, BUT they have responded to it and quoted it.
Here it is:

7th August 2019

Dear Sir,
Horizon Parking Limited have alleged that I parked without sufficient ticket purchase on Fore Street Totnes on the 25.11.2017, in my vehicle; reg xxxxxxxx.

I contest this accusation as I have never received a ticket in this location. Ever.

I don’t park in this location (because I am terrible at parallel parking) and should very much like to see evidence of me parking on this street. If available I will present this evidence to the police, as the driver was categorically not me and did not have my consent to use xxxxxxxx.

Furthermore, Fore Street Totnes’ parking is managed and controlled not by a private company but by South Hams District Council.

I have received numerous letters demanding money for something I haven’t done. I would like an apology from Horizon Parking Limited, and I look forward to this unfounded hassle being dealt with in an appropriate manner.

Yours sincerely,

That's not a witness statement, that's a letter.

Look at other threads on the forum to see what a WS should look like.

5thAttemptAtUserName

Thank you, I am trying to find out how to send in a supplemental witness statement. I'm still at square one.

Redx

5thAttemptAtUserName wrote: »

Thank you, I am trying to find out how to send in a supplemental witness statement. I'm still at square one.

See my post earlier , post #3

Draft it , hand it in to your local court , email and post to claimant , obtaining a free certificate of posting from the p o counter

Include a covering letter to the court. Bargepole stated

5thAttemptAtUserName

I'm getting it together!

I see from this thread that Abuse of Process will be the first defence. Thanks for your advice, it'll be sent tomorrow.

5thAttemptAtUserName

Here's my WS so far, hoping to get it emailed tonight and posted tomorrow. Thanks for your input, it's looking better.


IN THE TORBAY AND NEWTON ABBOT COUNTY COURT AND FAMILY
CLAIM NO: xxxxx
HORIZON PARKING LIMITED
(CLAIMANT)
-AND-
xxxxx
(DEFENDANT)

I, xxxx xxxx

1. I am the defendant in this matter and deny liability for the entirety of the claim.
2. Abuse of Process. Claimant has added costs which clearly cannot be justified in a case with basic errors.
3. Images provided in xxxxx xxxxxx’s Witness Statement (pages 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13) show nothing of Fore Street Totnes, but a different, unconnected and unrelated parcel of private land.
4. No aspect whatsoever of the Fore Street in Totnes is visible in any photograph supplied by the Claimant.
5. The land shown has no resemblance to the appearance, form, or function of Fore Street Totnes.
6. The property shown is not Fore Street, is not adjacent to Fore Street, is not known locally as Fore Street, does not function as Fore Street in any context whatsoever.
7. xxxxx xxxxxx states in his witness statement (page 2) that his company provides “bespoke parking operator services to the private sector”. Fore Street Totnes is not private property, but a Public Highway. Parking on Fore Street Totnes is controlled by South Hams District Council.
8. Neither Horizon Parking Limited nor Gladstones Solicitors have provided any evidence that they have landowner’s consent to operate in the Fore Street Totnes. They provide no evidence that they are working on behalf of SHDC, who control parking on this street.
9. Horizon Parking Limited are operating in breach of British Parking Association’s Code of Conduct by not having written authorisation the landowner to operate on the land of Totnes Fore Street.
Mr. xxxxxx states that his company is a member of the British Parking association (BPA).
Under the BPA guidelines, available from:

Members must have:

7 Written authorisation of the landowner 7.1 If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent). The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges. 7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken. 7.3 The written authorisation must also set out: a the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined

10. Horizon Parking Limited and Gladstones Solicitors have demonstrated no right or authority to operate and control parking in the Fore Street in Totnes. I wholly reject any claim made upon the assumption that they have any right or authority to operate their business on Totnes Fore Street. They have no signs in place in the Fore Street and therefore no contract could be entered into even if they did have permission to operate their business on this street. Fore Street Totnes differs from the land controlled by Horizon Parking in that it is a public highway, over which they have no control nor mandate to function in any capacity other than as private citizens.
11. I submit to the court that this claim made against me is insubstantial and vexatious in nature. Further, that this case is an Abuse of Process designed to frighten and extract money from tax paying, law abiding consumers, using the court process as the core substance of the product they offer to landowners.
12. Horizon Parking Limited have submitted no evidence whatsoever that they, or anyone else, can be sure who was driving the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged incident.
13. There is a huge pressure coming from MPs to outlaw the collections activities of parking firms, having succeeded in outlawing towing and clamping. I will be writing to my new MP and seek to further this work.
14. I will submit a complaint about Horizon Parking operating outside the BPA code of conduct in attempting to control the parking on public land over which they have no written authority.
15. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 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 £70. In addition to the original PCN penalty, for which liability is denied, the Claimants have artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding purported added 'costs' of £70, which the Defendant submits have not actually been incurred by the Claimant. 
16. If any driver, other than the Defendant, had used the car park. They may have displayed a ticket on the passenger’s side, which is totally obscured in all images supplied by the Claimant.
17. The Claimant has provided zero evidence of any driver with whom they could have contracted with. After such a period of time (over two years), I cannot be sure who, if anyone, drove the aforementioned car on the day of the alleged incident. This is no contract at all.
18. Claimant has provided no evidence of appropriate signage on the Fore Street Totnes, therefore no contract could have been entered into.




STATEMENT OF TRUTH
I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true.

Coupon-mad

You are throwing far too much at the 'Fore Street' thing. They are not alleging you were parked in a street, no doubt they mean a car park called Fore Street car park?

This WS is putting all your eggs in one basket and you don't even explain at the start where you got the 'Fore Street' from ...the Particulars of Claim? The original PCN? the NTK? All of them?

What if your Judge says 'the Claimant says this is Fore Street car park, do you recognise this car park?'

I am not saying drop it but deal with that point clearly and concisely over two points, not the entire basis for the case, without saying where you read it.

Don't quote swathes of the BPA CoP in the WS, instead attach it as an exhibit page:

Members must have:

7 Written authorisation of the landowner 7.1 If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent). The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges. 7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken. 7.3 The written authorisation must also set out: a the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined

This is not a sentence and needs to be a proper sentence:

2. Abuse of Process. Claimant has added costs which clearly cannot be justified in a case with basic errors.

'Abuse of Process' doesn't have one single meaning. Also, get rid of 'with basic errors' because a PPC can't add extra costs in any private parking case, errors or not.

You need to show us your costs schedule and your list of exhibits, too.

5thAttemptAtUserName

Thank you Coupon-Mad, thanks for bearing with me. I suspect I'm late and so have already sent this to everyone recorded delivery. I'm locked in at this point unless, perhaps, I've got loads of time left. I'll find out tomorrow (Monday morning).

Claimant has addressed the car park as Fore Street in the original PCN and all other letters, my exhibits include a map showing that it is at quite some distance from the fore street, connected by another road. And images of the only entrance to fore street, showing signage and ticket machines run by the council.

Yes, my eggs are in the one basket. I panicked and wanted it in before Monday (which I suspect is late anyway). I have no schedule of costs yet. I've been looking for what I might be able to ask on the day.

If the judge asks that question... i have no answer.

If I can ask questions, I might ask:

-You have not attempted to name any driver on the relevant day because you cannot do so, can you?

-Is it true that no part of Totnes Fore Street is showing in any of the images supplied?

-£70 has been added to the penalty charge you claim I owe. Being that many cases such as this will be tried in the DEFENDANT'S absence, and with no value added, nor demonstrable work done to justify such an exorbitant fee, this is clearly a technique used for double collection, isn’t it?

-In all the CLAIMANTS EXHIBITS the passenger side of the dashboard is completely obscured by bright sunlight reflecting in the windscreen. Can you tell us what, if anything, is obscured by the reflection in the windscreen over this part of the dashboard?
-Have you a witness statement to this effect?
-Do you agree that the passenger side dashboard is as normal a location for a customer to display a parking ticket as the driver’s side?

Here I am for better or worse. I'll post tomorrow and maybe I'll have aaaagggggeeeessssss to make this better. Maybe not.