BW Legal / Link Parking Court Summons on Resident Parking Permit Land (I have a Permit!)

SayNoToPCN

Can you surface the photos of the contract into the thread? Will help those that cant follow dropbox links right now

Is the signage a map or a plan
The former shoul dbe actuals
The latter can be aspirational, and has naff all evidential value

If it is the former and you can prove it is wrong, then you point out in your WS / in court that the claimants WS is materially wrong. It is either a mistake, calling into question the reliance that can be placed on the WS, or deliberate to mislead the court and appropriate sanctions against the WS author could be considered by the court. 

marketsqhero

As requested, here is the map / plan from Page 3. Any other photos you want me to upload? The rest are pictures of the car from various angles on both days, pictures of one of the signs nearest the car, one picture which shows the back of the car and sign in the same shot, the two PCN tickets, and the two NTK letters

SayNoToPCN

I asked for the complete contract  

That above you would argue is purporting to be a map, ie ACTUAL lcoations of signs.  A plan is a wish list of wher signs could be,. 
As such you pointout the "map" is:
- not signed
- not dated
- has some random x's taken from a weird angle, not showing height, position on side of road etc. 
- is materially defective as proiven by..... the signs at.... are not in place

marketsqhero

Ah, apologies. contract here

SayNoToPCN

Agreed. Terrible copy there
point out the "eviodence" of land owner authority is hugely deficient: the start date is not clear, the parties actually signing cannot be discerned, to ensure they have appropriate authority undewr S43 and 44 to enter into contracts, etc. 

marketsqhero

Had the witness statement through today from BW Legal. They seem to be making a big deal that some of my defence looked copy / paste from a MSE template!

They are also trying to argue that the cases I mentioned and sent in my document bundle regarding primacy of contract and residential parking are irrelevant as they are leaseholders, and I am but a tenant. Does that hold any weight?

Coupon-mad

Same old.  Search the forum for nonsensical...

They are also trying to argue that the cases I mentioned and sent in my document bundle regarding primacy of contract and residential parking are irrelevant as they are leaseholders, and I am but a tenant. Does that hold any weight?

No, some of the cases were about tenants.  Depends what your tenancy agreement says or doesn't say, and whether you have a private landowner and what rights he/she has as leaseholder, that are passed to you.

KeithP

marketsqhero said:

Had the witness statement through today from BW Legal. They seem to be making a big deal that some of my defence looked copy / paste from a MSE template!

Using the word nonsensical are they?

We've seen this drivel many times.

Stick that bold word in the forum's search facility. - 2502 mentions.

marketsqhero

My court date is looming, in fact it's tomorrow at 10:00. Over the phone obviously. 
BW Legal tried one more time to convince me to deal out of court but I respectfully declined their offer.
Any final tips you can give me before? I am mainly relying on primacy of contract with my AST, although BW in their statement tried to deflect this by saying that any cases I quoted were for leaseholders, not tenants and therefore not relevant  
Failing that I will go for the signage being against Beavis.

Quick question, am I right in saying that if they go for Beavis in relation to not having to have a loss to claim, then they can't claim excess on top of the penalty (double dipping)? 

brianposter

marketsqhero said:

Had the witness statement through today from BW Legal. They seem to be making a big deal that some of my defence looked copy / paste from a MSE template.

Should give you an opportunity to argue that you are disadvantaged by being an inexperienced litigant against very practiced litigants - where are you supposed to find appropriate terminology.