Link Parking and BWLegal advice please

D_P_Dance

I seems clear enough to me, what further information are you asking for?

mgmju411

Good afternoon everyone and thanks for all your help so far.

After reading all the posts and feedback, my wife submitted her witness statement and exhibits recently as she is keen to defend this based on two key points. 

1. Inadequate signage
2. Abuse of process

Following her submission she received the Claimant’s witness statement (from BW Legal) which contained the usual rubbish about using an online forum, copy & paste from forums (this site actually gets a mention) etc

To challenge the lack of signage they attached an aerial photo of the site with crosses (X) added to show where they say the signs were located along with an IPC site audit certificate.  In addition to this they also said that their Client stopped managing the site 1 week before the NTK was issued and that is why when my wife returned to the site all the signs had been removed.

This appear too convenient to be true as they would have only been managing this site for around 3 months (IPC cert date Aug to end of Nov) and they didn’t remove at least one sign.  Personally I think this is just another tactic these scammers use.

As neither of us are familiar with court proceedings I have a number of comments/questions about their WS which I hope you can help me with.

1. Is an aerial photo with crosses accepted in a court as proof of signage or should they provide actual photos which show these signs along with the wording, font size etc
2. They say that my wife had the opportunity to appeal to IAS which she didn’t - following advice from this forum
3. They refer to her conduct and use Dammermann v Lanyon Bowdler to support this
4. They have asked my wife, who challenged the legitimacy of the parking sign photo, to prove the Parking sign was not legitimate. Can she present additional info using the Exif (metadata) to do this?
5. As for abuse of process, they say that the debt recovery charge didn’t fall foul of the Supreme Court decision in Beavis and that they clearly are not a parking charge and therefore are not within the scope of Sch. 4 POFA.
6. Could the court strike this out using ‘abuse of process’ before the hearing?

Sorry for all the questions.

Finally, will my wife get an opportunity before the court hearing to challenge the Claimant’s witness statement and maybe even add a supplementary WS or will she have to wait for the hearing?

D_P_Dance

They have asked my wife, who challenged the legitimacy of the parking sign photo, to prove the Parking sign was not legitimate.

Wrong way round, it is up to them to prove that it is.

they say that the debt recovery charge didn’t fall foul of the Supreme Court decision in Beavis and that they clearly are not a parking charge and therefore are not within the scope of Sch. 4

They might struggle wit that in court   Have you read Excel v Wilkinson?

SayNoToPCN

Did you not challenge authority as well? Thats in the template
You defend on all the defence points. That's literally the point of writing them!

Besides, abuse of process is not a defence to the claim....

1) Is it signed and dated? Is it accurateor are there signs supposedly there that arent?
2) You point out, from 2 seconds gogoling, that the IAS only upholds 5% of appelants appeals, compared to POPLA. You saw no point in engaging with a kangeroo court set up and run, until recently, by the IPC and Gladstones directors. 
3) Not a bloody hope of dammerman applying. I bet their WS is a template as well?
4) Well hopefully she can say why it iis not "legit" - size? Shape? position? amnount of text? They then have to prove itr is. 
5) The supreme court stated the parking charge included all costs of running the scheme, plus a profit. Debt collection is a cost of running the scheme. Never mind they never actually paid that amount, and debt collectors operate no win no fee...and who would willingly pay a company £60 to collect £100? Thats insane. No court should ever believet hat
6) Yes, not gonna happen. 


If she wants to engage now, could bang in a supplementary WS, OR a skeleton argument - not the same thing. 
Or just raise on the day

Coupon-mad

They won't strike the entire claim out for adding a fake £60.

But she can send a supplementary WS if there is something she can add using photo metadata - what do you mean by that, what can she add?  It is THEIR claim to prove, not the other way around but if she has evidence that assists her case I would send a short supplementary WS.