Witness Statement and Trial Date - CEL Parking fine

1505grandad

This OK?

Fruitcake

Sorry about the formatting. I have no idea what has gone wrong.

At 34, the scammers have stated their intention to blatantly ignore the court practice rules by withholding evidence of alleged landowner authority, and instead brazenly ambush the defendant on the day of the court hearing.

There is no reason why a copy of the alleged contract could not be supplied to the defendant with any sensitive information redacted and provide an unredacted copy to the court.

Withholding this information that is fundamental to the claimant's case puts the defendant at a serious and unfair disadvantage, and is unreasonable in the extreme.

Other minor points.

At 28 they say that ANPR scameras are used to capture images of a vehicle that has not parked in a compliant manner, but this is not true. ANPR scameras only record time of vehicle entry and exit, not the parking event itself which would occur some distance from the entrance or exit. 

They have included copies of Without Prejudice letters from a third party. I was under the impression that anything marked WP cannot be shown to the court.

I can't see anywhere where they have named the landowner, so their is absolutely no proof they have authority to operate on the land in question.

Fruitcake

1505grandad said:

This OK?

That looks perfect.

Castle

Coupon-mad said:

re 25. How can Scott Wilson confirm that photos of signs taken in March 2017, nearly two YEARS before the pre-Christmas 2018 parking event were signs that ‘were in place at the date of the violation’. 

The signs would have had to be changed in May 2018 for the new GDPR and the privacy notice requirements.

Coupon-mad

Very good point.  I think between us we've demolished this WS and it will be useful to point other CEL defendants to this thread, because no doubt Scott Wilson's WS always look like this one.

mamangam

Thank you all for the comments. Should I add these as part of the Witness statement by creation a section "Observations from the Claimant's WS" before the statement of truth? Or should I created a separate page after witness statement like Supplementary witness statement?

Coupon-mad

I'd put it in the main WS with that heading.  Use it ALL!  This is ex-Wonga-man - tear his WS apart!

mamangam

Thank you all for your comments and help for the WS. This is great forum. Please find attached my updated WS based on your comments and input. Please have a look and let me know if its all good to go now.

Coupon-mad

I'd remove #10.  Don't confuse the Judge with things about visually impaired people.

#24 doesn't make grammatical sense.  I recommend getting famly members to proof read it from scratch.

This bit also didn't make grammatical sense:

 I live locally and used to shop at this retail park and have parked here and shops frequently. 

 Before the the same as or similar to the one I later received from the Claimant, alleging that I had parked in the car park without displaying a ticket and therefore breached a contract which I had allegedly entered into when entering the car park.

What?  ''displaying a ticket''?  Is this not an overstay in a free car park?  Because you then said:

It was not clear to me that this was an operational car park with time limits for free parking.

''operational'' isn't right.  You want ''commercial and monetised'' maybe (the latter is a word this industry love).

A typo here:

Please note the sings would have required a change in May 2018 as per the new GDPR and privacy notice requirement. 

This will need proof reading by your/family before you sign.  I only skim-read it.

mamangam

Thank you @Coupon-mad for the comments..I shall get some one to do a proof reading and also review the the points mentioned above. Anything else which I need to add in the points or as evidence you think?