Court Claim

KeithP

Here we go again...

Why does Alexandra Morrison start her Statement of Truth with "The Claimant believes..."?

The Claimant is a Limited company - incapable of believing anything.

Johnersh

Ahem. *Pace v Lengyl*

Does that sign actually offer parking? I think not. It's impossible to perform. You're in breach of the terms the second you come onto the land.

There's no instruction as to how to get a permit or potentially any entitlement to acquire one.

There's no offer to park if you pay £100. On the contrary, there is a charge of £100 for breaching the terms you can't ever comply with.

If as they might suggest you're not authorised, well you've never been offered parking, then. 

Since that's a generic statement we have no idea who took the photo, whether any grace was given and actually neither does Ms Morrison. The statement is an abuse insofar as there is lots of "my company believes" it's entirely opaque as to what is in her own knowledge and the statement of truth alters the wording of the civil procedure rules/requirements, which only flags the potential unreliability of what is said. 

Pickle20

I have updated the statement with all the suggestions. Could you please have a final look at it - hopefully i'm there this time, i'm looking to send it off today. I'm grateful for all the help and pointers, you have all been very kind and supportive. 

KeithP

This appears to be the site in question - goo.gl/maps/9ZDUnkwm6RW2Wn7s8

GSV cannot get very close, but there does appear to be five signs on that wall - at least that agrees with the Claimant's WS.
But look how high they are. By counting the brick courses, each course being 3" approx, I make the bottom of each of those signs to be over 10ft 6ins from the ground.

Each of those signs are two feet tall and the wording about permits is in the top half. Making the words "A valid permit must be displayed at all times" at least 12ft from the ground. I.e. 6ft - 7ft above typical eyelevel.

Looking around on GSV, there doesn't appear to be any entrance sign and the Claimant's WS doesn't mention any either.

Pickle20

KeithP said:

This appears to be the site in question - goo.gl/maps/9ZDUnkwm6RW2Wn7s8

GSV cannot get very close, but there does appear to be five signs on that wall - at least that agrees with the Claimant's WS.
But look how high they are. By counting the brick courses, each course being 3" approx, I make the bottom of each of those signs to be over 10ft 6ins from the ground.

Looking around on GSV, there doesn't appear to be any entrance sign and the Claimant's WS doesn't mention any either.

Yes KeithP, you are right there was no sign at the entrance into the park. Do you think its worth mentioning about the signage in my WS, seeing that the car was parked under these signs?

KeithP

Pickle20 said:

KeithP said:

This appears to be the site in question - goo.gl/maps/9ZDUnkwm6RW2Wn7s8

GSV cannot get very close, but there does appear to be five signs on that wall - at least that agrees with the Claimant's WS.
But look how high they are. By counting the brick courses, each course being 3" approx, I make the bottom of each of those signs to be over 10ft 6ins from the ground.

Looking around on GSV, there doesn't appear to be any entrance sign and the Claimant's WS doesn't mention any either.

Yes KeithP, you are right there was no sign at the entrance into the park. Do you think its worth mentioning about the signage in my WS, seeing that the car was parked under these signs?

Well yes of course you mentions signs. Without any signs there can be no contract to park.

And you absolutely must include the point that @Johnersh has mentioned - that is a forbidding sign that offers no contract. If no contract is offered then no contract can be broken, can it?

Pickle20

Johnersh said:

Ahem. *Pace v Lengyl*

Does that sign actually offer parking? I think not. It's impossible to perform. You're in breach of the terms the second you come onto the land.

There's no instruction as to how to get a permit or potentially any entitlement to acquire one.

There's no offer to park if you pay £100. On the contrary, there is a charge of £100 for breaching the terms you can't ever comply with.

If as they might suggest you're not authorised, well you've never been offered parking, then. 

Since that's a generic statement we have no idea who took the photo, whether any grace was given and actually neither does Ms Morrison. The statement is an abuse insofar as there is lots of "my company believes" it's entirely opaque as to what is in her own knowledge and the statement of truth alters the wording of the civil procedure rules/requirements, which only flags the potential unreliability of what is said. 

Thank you Johnersh, i've included your point at the end of the REDACTED LANDOWNER CONTRACT. Have i sighted this correctly, please?

15. The signage at the location does not offer parking but yet you are in breach of the terms and condition the second you come onto the land; which is impossible to perform. There's no instruction as to how to get a permit or potentially any entitlement to acquire one. There's no offer to park if you pay £100. On the contrary, there is a charge of £100 for breaching the terms you can't ever comply with. If, as the Claimant might suggest that I am not authorised, it then means that I have never been offered parking, then. Since this is a generic statement and we have no idea who took the photo, whether any grace was given and I argue that neither does Ms Morrison. This statement is an abuse insofar as there is lots of "my company believes" it is entirely opaque as to what is in the Claimant’s own knowledge and the statement of truth alters the wording of the civil procedure rules/requirements, which only flags the potential unreliability of what is said.

Johnersh

The very thin contract such as it is, records 'no unauthorised parking' so it's unclear how that can be construed in the witness statement as a contract that offers parking to all, where they explain how the scheme operates.

Their reference to unforeseen circumstances relies on weak evidence from the county court, but that is actually cross-referring to Beavis at 111. Unsurprisingly it says merely overstaying in a paid car park is not unusual and allowing some contingency time is sensible. But look what is says about special circumstances. Ah yes, the appeals process should hear drivers out on that.... In short, medical emergency ain't the same as staying in B&Q a bit longer than planned....

Really dislike incomplete citation and restatement from what is not source material, it risks misleading the court. 

1505grandad

You may wish to review that the "Content" summary of exhibits matches the exhibit numbers in the WS i.e.:-

Para 6  -  is about diagnosis and states " Please see XX-7."

However "Content" states  -  "NB-7 Britannia v Crosby Approved Judgment - Southampton Court"

Fruitcake

Not only are the signs high up, they are at right angles to any direction of travel.

Did the NTK show photos of the car parked because there are none in their WS, so there is no proof the vehicle was ever at the location (unless the NTK with photos was included in the claim/exhibits).

You could a quick comment in 14 that an appeal court decision is persuasive on the lower courts.

For the Semark-Jullien case, you could perhaps say that the appeal court judge did not find that the additional £60 added to the claim were acceptable.

You really do need to attack the signage, As mentioned before, the one in the WS is a stock image. No images of the actual signs on site have been included. 
The white squares on the wall in the GSV image could be anything from signs to air vents, and are at right angles to any normal direction of travel, and too high up to be seen from a moving vehicle.
Include a copy of the Beavis case about signs. The third post of the NEWBIES about PoPLA has a section about signs with an image of the unusually clear sign in the Beavis case for comparison.