New MCOL N1 court claim filed by BW Legal re Parking Fine by Napier Parking in 2018

disrepair

Coupon-mad said:

I will if it's good!!

But check out the ones I wrote and gave you 2 links to read, above, as they are newer than Chefdave's and cover the Salisbury appeal, to kill that off.

Thank you so much CM, I'm currently working on both right now - will post another update here once I've finished so it's clear I've made any and all changes possible

KeithP

Paras 2 should be truncated to:

2.     On the date in question, the vehicle in question, registration mark XXXX XXX was parked at Willen Lake at the time of the alleged contravention. The driver had purchased a valid pay and display ticket (shown in XX/01).

Para 3 needs deleting.

Are you not going to say anything about the signs?

disrepair

KeithP said:

Are you not going to say anything about the signs?

I had that bit in the Supplementary WS as I had expanded on that quite a bit relating to Beavis and their own sign requirements set by BPA - if I should move any bits from Supplementary to the WS or vice versa, just let me know.

@Coupon-mad Put up everything I can do tonight, will take a nap to get rid of this banging headache I seem to have and continue working on this in the morning. Any and all criticisms are welcome! 

Big thank you to everyone for the support

Umkomaas

Napier Parking is a member of the BPA, and their Code of Practice at the time (Version 7, January 2018, as seen in XX/02)

Napier Parking are not a member of the BPA (AOS scheme). They are a member of the IPC AOS scheme. To which ATA they were affiliated in 2018 I'm not sure (the IPC no longer show the 'join' date), but I think Napier have been with them for much longer than a couple of years. 

You need to determine which ATA AOS they were members of at the material date (it should say on their original NtK and subsequent paperwork), because if it was the IPC, your Code of Practice reference and quote will need to change. 

Redx

Umkomaas said:

Napier Parking is a member of the BPA, and their Code of Practice at the time (Version 7, January 2018, as seen in XX/02)

Napier Parking are not a member of the BPA (AOS scheme). They are a member of the IPC AOS scheme. To which ATA they were affiliated in 2018 I'm not sure (the IPC no longer show the 'join' date), but I think Napier have been with them for much longer than a couple of years. 

You need to determine which ATA AOS they were members of at the material date (it should say on their original NtK and subsequent paperwork), because if it was the IPC, your Code of Practice reference and quote will need to change. 

Napier were incorporated on 01 march 2016 according to the way back machine

https://web.archive.org/web/20160824151632/http://www.theipc.info/aos-members/?page=3

So that sworn statement contains untruths as you say , it's a false statement and the statement of truth warns the OP about making false statements

I did tell the OP that I did not believe that Napier were BPA AOS members at the time of this incident 2 years ago ! I also mentioned they need to use the correct CoP

I suggest people use the way back machine to check info like this in future , it's like gsv goback when checking signs and layout issues etc

Coupon-mad

Napier Parking is a member of the BPA.

No they aren't.  They are corporate members (rectangle logo) but not AOS (roundel).

As Redx rightly says, you need the IPC CoP from the time.

You are missing anything about no landowner authority but for Willen Lake maybe that's OK because I think Napier lease it, or they certainly have a contract IMHO so maybe in this rare case that's not needed.

The Judge at Sailsbury correctly identified as an aside,

'Salisbury' but you haven't introduced what that case is.  Like in my example you need to tell the Judge what the Salisbury case is, that followed after Southampton.

nosferatu1001

Your supplementary WS must not contain Signage info. No idea why you would put that there. it is not supplementary!

disrepair

Morning all, 

I've edited my word document with the IPC and will be adding the other touches soon. BW Legal just came through with their full WS and bundle, so I've redacted personal information and here it is! You're all famous, the thread seems to have made it's way onto the Exhibits. 

Quick question: With a court date of 6/Oct/2020, what is the absolute deadline? I'm thinking by 2pm on the 22nd, or is the deadline earlier than that?

*EDIT* : I've updated the Supplementary WS very slightly - I'm unsure of what to add to either of the statements so far, so please let me know if anything is missing. Should I move over the part about signs to the main Witness Statement? 

Redx

The deadline should be on your court order , read it or them , if you have their WS then yours is imminently due , or already due !!

I would have the signage on the main WS , same as any other core arguments or observations

Coupon-mad

Deadline is two weeks before the hearing, no later than 4pm.  A Tuesday hearing means the deadline is a Tuesday (tomorrow).

You don't need a Supplementary WS. 

What you need is to copy from AND ADPAT TO SUIT, the example WS I wrote recently about the Salisbury case, in the threads by @painbl (defendant was driving and admits it) and @blancswann (defendant wasn't driving). 

On what basis is there evidence that the ticket had actually expired, i.e. was it really 19.04pm when that pic was taken or does the driver take issue with that convenient 11 minute gap, purportedly shown in the image metadata?  Just asking.

Not many signs at that place according to the aerial view!  But there is a sign near the car.  You may struggle with this one so the D does need to know how to argue about the added £60 as damage limitation.  That is why they need the newer WS version, explaining why the Salisbury appeal was a damp squib for BW Legal who had such high hopes for it, I'm sure.