DCB Legal & Premier Parking Logistics (Hearing Day 😞)

Fruitcake

I'm concerned about your point 16 regarding land ownership and the Land Registry entries you are using as evidence.

The printed name on the contract could begin with a Y or it could be a badly written U, which could therefore be one of the landowners. The signature on the contract looks like it begins with a badly written narrow U as well.

The confusing part is that the contract says it is being signed on behalf of the landowner, not by the landowner, but if it signed by the actual landowner then legally that could well mean the same thing.

Th1nDiesel

Thanks @Fruitcake; would it make sense to remove the Land Registry document and reference to it, but leave the comments about no proof that the client and landowner are the same? Or would it be better to remove the whole lot? I don't want to appear to be clutching at straws when I have other valid arguments.

Redx

The summary costs assessment is submitted along with the witness statement plus exhibits stage , so in your bundle to court and claimant. Include estimated travel and parking costs , the judge will decide relevance and amounts if different , so no omissions , if in any doubt , include

If it's a telephone hearing , include a copy of the payslip along with your contact details in your email

If it's in person , take the original plus a copy with you , plus do not forget to ask at the hearing end , before you all go your separate ways

Th1nDiesel

Thank you @Redx. With that in mind, I'll include the cost of a train ticket in the cost assessment, then the judge can exclude it if it's done over the phone.


Do I have to send the payslip with the witness statement in case it is a telephone hearing? If that is the case then I'll send the WS to the court and the solicitors in two separate emails as I'd rather the claimant not know where I work.

Fruitcake

Send the payslip with your summary costs assessment.


I'm not sure about the contract and land ownership. I fear that you might be guiding the judge towards believing the scammers have landowner authority whereas your other points may be much stronger.

Th1nDiesel

Fruitcake said:

I'm not sure about the contract and land ownership. I fear that you might be guiding the judge towards believing the scammers have landowner authority whereas your other points may be much stronger.

When you put it like that, it does seem like a potential own goal; I'll remove Land Registry entry and reference to it. Would I still be right in calling into question that the client is not the landowner, or should I remove paragraph 16 altogether?

Fruitcake said:

Send the payslip with your summary costs assessment.

Is it okay to send the summary costs assessment (with payslip) as a separate document to the WS when I send it to the court, then send only the WS to the claimant's solicitor?

Umkomaas

You question the ownership of the land, let the PPC provide whatever proof they have. As a minimum they will have to go to some trouble, which will need them to either bother the landowner, or pay The Land Registry, to do so. 

Send your Cost Schedule as part of your WS, but only copy your payslip to the court. The claimant has no need to see that, but they do need to be aware that you will be seeking £95 loss of earnings/annual leave cost from them. I wouldn't risk two separate documents, hoping the court clerk will spot the link and then physically amalgamate them. 

I notice in your WS that you are heading up a section 'Abuse of Process'. The forum now recommends 'Double Recovery', otherwise the Judge might just edge towards the Semark-Jullien case, which doesn't really help you. 

Th1nDiesel

Thanks @Umkomaas. I've amended para 16 which now reads as follows:

16. It is also questionable that the named client and signatory of the PSA is indeed the landowner of the site in question and there is no proof to state that this is the case. If there is no proof that the client and landowner are one and the same, then the claimant has no proof of their authority to issue parking charges or their standing to enforce such charges by means of civil litigation in their own name, since the parking charges are argued to be contractual and the authority to sue visitors must flow from the landowner, not an agent. 

'Abuse of process' has been changed to 'Double recovery' as per your suggestion and I'll leave in the cost summary and send a copy of my payslip when I send the court my WS. I'll then send only the WS to the claimant.

As per my earlier question, is it okay to leave in the following in paragraph 9?:

It is possible that any PCN placed on the windscreen by the claimant, or an employee thereof, was blown off by a gust of wind or removed by another patron of the car park; either scenario is beyond the control of the driver of the vehicle. It also cannot be ruled out that the PCN was removed by the claimant, or an employee thereof, following the taking of a photograph, with the purpose of denying myself the opportunity to appeal or to pay a reduced fee.

I know the WS is supposed to be fact based and not a place for accusations, but stating a possibility is a fact, is it not?

Umkomaas

It is possible that any PCN placed on the windscreen by the claimant, or an employee thereof, was blown off by a gust of wind or removed by another patron of the car park; either scenario is beyond the control of the driver of the vehicle. It also cannot be ruled out that the PCN was removed by the claimant, or an employee thereof, following the taking of a photograph, with the purpose of denying myself the opportunity to appeal or to pay a reduced fee.

There's a hint of culpability there. Leave it all out, in my view. 

Th1nDiesel

Umkomaas said:

It is possible that any PCN placed on the windscreen by the claimant, or an employee thereof, was blown off by a gust of wind or removed by another patron of the car park; either scenario is beyond the control of the driver of the vehicle. It also cannot be ruled out that the PCN was removed by the claimant, or an employee thereof, following the taking of a photograph, with the purpose of denying myself the opportunity to appeal or to pay a reduced fee.

There's a hint of culpability there. Leave it all out, in my view. 

Even the gust of wind/removal by another patron bit? I'd like to stress that despite the fact that there is a photograph of my vehicle with a PCN on the windscreen, it was not there when I returned, and offer reasons why this may have been the case. Or am I better off leaving it at:

9. I returned to the vehicle just less than four hours later where, contrary to the claimant’s claim, there was no Parking Charge Notice (PCN) affixed to the vehicle’s windscreen. Therefore, I entered the vehicle and drove away from the car park. It should be noted that had there been any notice affixed to the windscreen at the time of my return then I would have kept the parking ticket as proof of purchase and made an appeal within the correct timeframe

which is a fact of the case?