BW Legal / Premier Park Ltd - Court Claim

KeithP

I think @1505grandad is saying that in para 11 of your Witness Statement, you should not be referring to the IPC's Code of Practice but instead you should be referencing the BPA's CoP.

kevin_uk84

Redx said:

Acronyms are in the newbies FAQ sticky thread post 5

We are on 8 pages and you don't understand the basics ?

There is so much bitchiness on this forum - If you haven't got anything helpful to say, then don't say it all.
This is the first time I have been through this process - I work multiple jobs and have a family to look after.  I am not sure what your circumstances are, but please respect the fact that others may not have the same amount of time or know-how as you!

kevin_uk84

KeithP said:

I think @1505grandad is saying that in para 11 of your Witness Statement, you should not be referring to the IPC's Code of Practice but instead you should be referencing the BPA's CoP.

Thank you @KeithP - I used the template on the forum - I tried to work through it yesterday (spending almost 6 hours on it) to make sure each paragraph was appropriate for my statement - Obviously I missed this one - I will update.

Coupon-mad

I do recommend you check out the forum acronyms in post #5 of the NEWBIES thread or you will struggle throughout the process this year.

kevin_uk84

Coupon-mad said:

I do recommend you check out the forum acronyms in post #5 of the NEWBIES thread or you will struggle throughout the process this year.

Thank you - I have now read this and updated my statement.
There is just so much information on this forum - I am just trying to navigate it all.

Umkomaas

From a skim read - Your Index list page numbering at the top of your WS doesn't seem to correlate with the page numbering of the actual WS. Please check.

I suggest you change the heading 'Abuse of Process' to read 'Double Recovery' as full-case strike outs have pretty much faltered since the Semark-Jullien appeal. Although in the north of England DJ Claire Jackson's judgment  in Excel v Wilkinson has resulted in localised strike outs there. So, adding that to your WS might be helpful, e.g. your extra paragraph could say:

 'At the Bradford County Court, District Judge Claire Jackson (now HHJ Jackson, a Specialist Civil Circuit Judge) decided to hear a 'test case' a few months ago, where £60 had been added to a parking charge despite Judges up and down the country repeatedly disallowing that sum and warning parking firms not to waste court time with such spurious claims.   That case was Excel v Wilkinson: G4QZ465V, heard in July 2020 and leave to appeal was refused and that route was not pursued.  The Judge concluded that such claims are proceedings with 'an improper collateral purpose'.   This Judge - and others who have since copied her words and struck dozens of cases out in late 2020 and into 2021 - went into significant detail and concluded that parking operators (such as this Claimant) are seeking to circumvent CPR 27.14 as well as breaching the Consumer Rights Act 2015.   DJ Hickinbottom has recently struck more cases out in that court area, stating: ''I find that striking out this claim is the only appropriate manner in which the disapproval of the court can be shown''.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/16qovzulab1szem/G4QZ465V%20Excel%20v%20Wilkinson.pdf?dl=0

kevin_uk84

Umkomaas said:

From a skim read - Your Index list page numbering at the top of your WS doesn't seem to correlate with the page numbering of the actual WS. Please check.

I suggest you change the heading 'Abuse of Process' to read 'Double Recovery' as full-case strike outs have pretty much faltered since the Semark-Jullien appeal. Although in the north of England DJ Claire Jackson's judgment  in Excel v Wilkinson has resulted in localised strike outs there. So, adding that to your WS might be helpful, e.g. your extra paragraph could say:

 'At the Bradford County Court, District Judge Claire Jackson (now HHJ Jackson, a Specialist Civil Circuit Judge) decided to hear a 'test case' a few months ago, where £60 had been added to a parking charge despite Judges up and down the country repeatedly disallowing that sum and warning parking firms not to waste court time with such spurious claims.   That case was Excel v Wilkinson: G4QZ465V, heard in July 2020 and leave to appeal was refused and that route was not pursued.  The Judge concluded that such claims are proceedings with 'an improper collateral purpose'.   This Judge - and others who have since copied her words and struck dozens of cases out in late 2020 and into 2021 - went into significant detail and concluded that parking operators (such as this Claimant) are seeking to circumvent CPR 27.14 as well as breaching the Consumer Rights Act 2015.   DJ Hickinbottom has recently struck more cases out in that court area, stating: ''I find that striking out this claim is the only appropriate manner in which the disapproval of the court can be shown''.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/16qovzulab1szem/G4QZ465V%20Excel%20v%20Wilkinson.pdf?dl=0

Thank you.

kevin_uk84

Hi, 
I have today received the Claimant's witness statement - They are placing reliance on VCS Ltd Vs Alfred Charles Crutchley [2017]. They quote Hon Judge Wood QC:
"It is incumbent, in my judgment, on a person entering private property, when it is clear that a contractual licence is being provided, to understand the terms of such a licence. It would not be onerous or oppressive, although probably inconvenient, for a visitor to establish those terms and conditions before entering the business park in the first place, even if this required remaining outside, and entering on foot, when the contents of the notices in combination, would become apparent"
I cannot find details re this case - I don't know whether it applies in my case.

For reference, within the Claimant's car park, there is an entrance to a train station car park.  The signage is poor and I parked in the Claimant's car park, but paid the train station.

D_P_Dance

Absolutely correct,  but s it clear thar a contractual licence is being provided?  Was everything served in time, were the sihgns readable, did the PPC have proper permissions fro landowners, Council, DVLA,  etc?  

Did they not provide a transcript of VCS v Crutchley

kevin_uk84

I have not received a transcript and I am unable to find anything online.
My argument is that the signage is not clear - Especially in darkness.  I am relying on elements of the BPA Code in relation to signage.