Defence - Countrywide Parking Management & BW Legal

Coupon-mad

 license

That's a verb (or US spelling).  You want the noun (no 's').

As for the point about the double recovery addition of false debt recovery add-ons, that's covered in your WS I think, but I can't recall if it had ParkingEye v Somerfield in it?  If not, throw that in now (see the forum's template defence for that quote from HHJ Hegarty unless you WS already has ir).

SayNoToPCN

Very good summary
I do like the snarky aside to their complaint of a template defence, as it makes the point neatly that the claimants WS is a template and makes material errors of fact

As a note: having pohotos dated before the material date is fine, a court would not expect them to go and take 100 new photos each time someone gets a ticket. What does matter a lot is where the dates are after the material date, as that deos not prove the sign in place at the time, and weirdly if they have dates before but then remove the signs before the material date. If the latter, that is a major attempot to mislead

jrhys

@Coupon-mad - thanks. the "would appear to be penal" is in my defence, and I've got Excel v Wilkinson referenced in and appended to my WS. I feel on reflection that I could have drawn out more clearly from E v W the reasons for DJ Jackson's determination that the £60 constituted double recovery, but at least I'll have it for the hearing. I think it may be best to leave the response as is on that matter.

@SayNoToPCN - cheers. took a fair bit of crafting to dilute the snark; lots of references to stones, glass houses, pots and kettles went by the wayside.

Happy that 4 pages (as that runs to with nice formatting) is concise enough?

On the matter of the dates - I think their documents are majorly misleading, whether inadvertent or through carelessness or inexpertness.

The key thing here is that they are using images of signs (in particular the entrance sign) taken before the material date, but evidently not present on the material date, to form the "conspicuous signage" basis of their claim that I was aware of, therefore accepted, therefore can be bound by their terms under Beavis, Vine, Crutchley, Ward etc.  - should I draw this out more clearly?

one other matter, brought up in BW's WS, is that there was only one minute (according to the timestamps) between the photograph taken of my vehicle and the photograph of a sign. What are your thoughts on this? - I haven't addressed this, but I'm concerned that it's potential quite material. I can only say that I didn't see that sign, and that, given I was a previous resident who often needed the loo when I got home, I know that I could've been in my flat up on the third floor of the building within a minute - or at any of the other locations as per the sign map, where I am unable to dispute there were signs, my dispute being with the fact that there were no visible signs upon entry, parking or exit.

SayNoToPCN

I would say, given the "extensive" WS that is as good as you are going to get. 

YES! Make it clear that they seemed to put up signs, then take them down, and you have proof of this. 

I am not sure why 1 min between a pic of a car and a sign matters? Yo9u need to explain the significance a little more clearly i think!

jrhys

@SayNoToPCN - I think BW are just saying that I can't have a valid claim (given the Crutchley judgment that it is my responsibility to seek out the terms and conditions I'm subject to before entering clearly private property) to have not seen the signs laying out those ToCs, if I could have walked for less than a minute from where I parked to such a sign:

from the BW WS:

The Defendant saw no signs that dav

35. The Defendant appears to be disingenuous when stating there was no signs on the Contravention Date, yet the PA has taken photographs of the Vehicle in breach and the sign in close proximity to the Vehicle within 1 minute of taking the previous photograph.

SayNoToPCN

Well make it clear you did not see them - that is different to them not being there, of course!
Vine makes it clear that signs have to be conspicuous. You are not required to seek them out. Crutchley is not precedent I dont believe.

You could state that in 1 minute you can happily walk the entire building, so if you know where the signs are, y9ou can go  there quickly. 

SayNoToPCN

An average walking speed is aroudn 1.5m/s so you can go 90m in that time, easily. SIgns 90m away is a long way!

jrhys

cheers team.

response submitted and receipt confirmed ahead of the 4pm deadline - haven't had any response to my documents from BW, but I did submit my WS past the deadline.

will keep you posted.

SayNoToPCN

I doubt you will get anything back from them. They dont say more than they need to.

jrhys

relating to the schedule of costs in my WS (and anyone who may choose to use elements of it for their own WS), doesn't the following from CPR prevent me claiming both the £95 for the hearing fee and the £19 x [hours worked], as I have done?

CPR 46.5

o   (5) A litigant who is allowed costs for attending at court to conduct the case is not entitled to a witness allowance in respect of such attendance in addition to those costs.