Missed all the early stages of appeal and now heading to court

harmonicapapa

After waiting several months and sending a threatening email in the last week, I have finally had info sent to me in response to my SAR.  The letters sent to me by post say Smart Parking but the digital versions sent to me in relation to my SAR refer to 

Town and City Parking Ltd.  Additionally, the wording between what I actually received and the SAR provided versions is completely different as are the dates (out by a couple days).  Is there a link between Town and City Parking and Smart Parking?

Le_Kirk

Auntie Google showed me this: -
https://payments.townandcityparking.co.uk/live-pgc-user/TicketDetails.asp

harmonicapapa

I also found this - https://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/smart-parking/. I looked up Town and City Parking on Companies House and it is still trading and registered to the same address as Smart Parking.  This just adds to the confusion about who am I actually dealing with.  Is it worth pointing out the Company name and date discrepancies in my WS?

Le_Kirk

Yes because you might find that the claimant doesn't actually have landowner authority to issue PCNs and pursue you to court because of using the wrong entity name.  Check out some of the Britannia threads where they go under three (at least) different names and different company numbers.

Redx

Also Excel and VCS have similar issues , where the signs or paperwork say one company yet the other company is pursuing it

Identity crisis happens a lot with these firms , exploit it , explore every Loophole

Coupon-mad

Yes you must point out the confusion and the two company numbers and the fact the SAR evidence showed differences (out by a couple of days).  Show us your new draft.  You can copy and adapt the WS I wrote in the HX thread last month, to deal with the added costs concisely and to cover the damp squib Semark-Jullien case.

harmonicapapa

Thankyou, I have included a big chunk of what you had in this thread - https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6102255/preparation-of-defence-hx-gladstones/p6. Was this the one you were referring to?

Here's the most recent update to the WS.  I'm worried I'm getting a bit mouthy with my ending claims.  I feel like I am trying to add in more without really knowing whether it strengthens my argument or not. The WS is stretching onto 6 pages now!!  

harmonicapapa

I've received the WS from Gladstones.  
They make a few factually incorrect assertions that seem more clerical than deceptive, but can anyone advise on how I can use these as another example of their incompetence?  

1. The photos they have submitted as evidence seem to be more recent than the ones I took soon after the incident. The signs look different. Their photos also don't match what can be viewed via Google Street View which shows images taken 4 months prior to the incident (probably a truer reflection of what was in place at the time).  There is even an example where they show a sign at one of the entrances to the car park that didn't exist when the Street View images were taken.  This is surely misleading the court.  

2. Throughout their WS, they claim the parking charge is £100, but the signs I have taken photos of and their own photos show the amount to be £90.  Their correspondence also refers to £90.

3. They claim in the WS that £60 is being sought for debt recovery, but actually according to the PoC they are seeking £85

4. They have included a version of a letter they claim to have been sent to me dated 5 days after the contravention (addressed to me and my home), but in their WS, they state that they weren't notified of my home address by my leasing company until 33 days after the contravention. So how could they send me a letter 28 days before they knew where I lived?  

5. The versions of the correspondence included from Smart Parking as evidence do not match the actual letters they sent me.  In an email from them as part of my SAR request they said, 'We only retain formatted copies of PCNs for a period of 6 months, but I have included a copy of the Raw PCN.' I'm not sure what that means, but it would appear they are passing off letters of correspondence as evidence even though they were not sent in that form. 

Redx

now that is more like a WS with exhibits being mentioned etc

I am not saying its 100% or that there are no errors etc , but it wont be as long as the claimants WS, trust me on that aspect

yes look for their errors and incorporate those observations in your own WS, use their own WS against them seeing as they signed it as the truth, and nothing but the truth

also ensure you have the 2 companies listed near the top and that there is confusion over who the entity is , TOWN and Country on some exhibits , yet SMART who are the actual claimant, I know its in their but make it plain as day, same as you have done with being the keeper and not the driver

wait for other comments too

nosferatu1001

1) then point out the obvious differences, point out your photos are better than theirs as closer to the actual date, and google streeet view also shows before the date. So unless they changed them to the ones they're showing to th3 court, then back to the ones you have, then back to the new ones, their photos are of zero value and should be disregarded. 

2) point out the claimant is, by their own evidence, not entitled to the sum they're claiming. Their witness statement is not a witness statement, it clearly hasn't been read and compared to the images, because that's so obvious a difference. You ask the court strikes the entire WS out as it must be unreliable. To add insult, the claimants witness couldn't even be bothered to turn up so you could question them on these errrors

3) pretty much as above. Ask why the court should take this WS as having any value at all. It's laughably bad. 

4) pretty much as above. The two things cannot both be true, so either the so called witnes is lying, or they're so incompetent they can't be trusted.  Neither bodes well for them!

5)