Now at Mediation

MrEnigma

D_P_Dance said:

Nos is right, you need to align your waterfowl, these companies can ruin your life. 

Indeed, but hardly.

nosferatu1001

Have you provided the proof as above, from C_M? 

MrEnigma

Coupon-mad said:

Yes you have the wrong acronym everywhere, change all UKPCM to UKCPM or 'the Claimant'.

Remove the stuff you have where you cite VCS v HMRC which makes no sense in a witness statement.  I can't understand what point it's being used to make.

And this tells me that the Judge will want evidence of what job you do.  Have you added that, in which case give it an exhibit number and refer to it here:

3.       On 22nd March 2019 I was asked by XXXXXX XXXXXX (Mace Construction Ltd) who was instructed by Knight Dragon (Landowners) to attend site on 23rd March 2019 to deal with an urgent Electrical changeover that needed to take place to keep the construction up and running for over 400 employees the following Monday.

Can you then show us what it looks like again, with all the changes made?  We are on page 10 now and it's already back on page 9.

AS requested.
Changes made.
I will also amend the WS so the discreprancies of the claimants WS are bulleted first.


Thanks again, so very kind, and indeed patient people on the forum, and indeed this thread.

MrEnigma

Here is the draft with changes made
https://1drv.ms/w/s!AmysR6NX9lMphNcOXWFoITo08uAj-A?e=HdKohx
Thank you

MrEnigma

OK guys thanks for bearing with me.
Ive amended the document again, and trying to bring some key facts to the judge at the start of my WS. Amazingly the claimant has issued an agreement that is out of date by 3 weeks of the incident, and sited other areas that come into effect afterwards. And its clear that where the said incident occured is not on the list.
here is the latest draft
https://1drv.ms/w/s!AmysR6NX9lMphNcOXWFoITo08uAj-A?e=A2PWqF
No need to read all of it, as you kind people have already done that, I have rectified the document to address all your comments.
I have added more exhibits, but kept off my credentials, and indeed any references to said qualifications.
Thank you all once again.
Fingers crossed

1505grandad

Another observation to add to all the others that have been mentioned  -  but still remain unaltered in the document:-

there are two Court dates stated.

Never mind  -  I'm not the person signing the SoT. 

MrEnigma

1505grandad said:

Another observation to add to all the others that have been mentioned  -  but still remain unaltered in the document:-

there are two Court dates stated.

Never mind  -  I'm not the person signing the SoT. 

Thank you
Amended

Coupon-mad

Change:

I request that the IPC check whether UKCPM LTD have provided...

to:

I put UKCPM to strict proof...

Where are the usual exhibits that the NEWBIES thread coaches people to use, such as the Beavis case yellow sign next to an image of the C's sign?


Remove this entirely (partly because it is waffle, VAT doesn't apply, 'estimate of loss' doesn't apply as an argument and your Claimant is not PCM!):

I do not believe that the operator has the necessary legal capacity to enter a contract with a driver of the vehicle parked on the construction site, and indeed the legal standing to allege a breach of contract. In other words, they are not, as the operator’s assert’s, a contractual term. If they were a contractual term, they are not as the Operator asserts, a contractual term. If they were a contractual term, the Operator would have to provide a VAT invoice, to provide a means of payment at the point of supply and to account to HMRC for the VAT element of the charge. The appellant asserts that these requirements have not been met. It must therefore be concluded that the Operator’s charges are in fact damages, or penalties, for which the Operator must demonstrate his actual, or pre-estimated, losses asset as set out above.

Moreso, the signage present at the location relied upon to create a contract between the landowner and the driver does not identify PCM as the creditor for any charges that arise out of the contract or damages following a breach of contract. Therefore, PCM is unable to pursue this claim since they have not been identified as a creditor (IPC CoP, Part B, paragraph 1).

Move this quote from para 419 of Somerfield down a line to make it stand out more as a quote, and put it in italics:

''It seems to me that, in the present case, it would be difficult for ParkingEye to justify, as against any motorist, a claim for payment of the enhanced sum of £135 if the motorist took the point that the additional £60 over and above the original figure of £75 constituted a penalty. It might be possible for ParkingEye to show that the additional administrative costs involved were substantial, though I very much doubt whether they would be able to justify this very large increase on that basis. On the face of it, it seems to me that the predominant contractual function of this additional payment must have been to deter the motorist from breaking his contractual obligation to pay the basic charge of £75 within the time specified, rather than to compensate ParkingEye for late payment. Applying the formula adopted by Colman J. in the Lordsvale case, therefore, the additional £60 would appear to be penal in nature; and it is well established that, in those circumstances, it cannot be recovered, though the other party would have at least a theoretical right to damages for breach of the primary obligation.''

MrEnigma

Thank you C_M

MrEnigma

Comments by grandad, and C_M, now actioned, 
https://1drv.ms/w/s!AmysR6NX9lMphNcOXWFoITo08uAj-A?e=ZEM3w4