Help with defence

Fruitcake

Upload the claimant's WS to dropbox or similar and post it here. Only redact YOUR personal data, and tell us if the PPC has redacted anything.

We are especially interested in the name of the legal who produced the WS, their signature and statement of truth, and the exhibits such as signs, and most important of all, the alleged landowner contract.

jordan91

https://www.scribd.com/document/512543795/Edited-Witness-Statement-Claimant

That is a copy of the witness statement provided to me. I have edited out any personal details.

Thank you everyone. 

Umkomaas

Who on earth is Walton contracting with here?  Some private house on a dirt track road?  Who is 'Loxley Taylor' and does he have some kind of business there?  As usual, the contract (or PSA as Walt likes to call it) is a bit of a road crash.

Keep going through the hoops and there's a good chance that there will be a discontinuation. 

Fruitcake

Para 9 states that the claimant was instructed by the landowner, but no proof of land ownership has been provided.

The alleged contract with the landowner, Exhibit 1, referred to as a parking service agreement (PSA), actually states that agreement is with a person called L Taylor who is authorised by the landowner, but the landowner has not been identified, nor has any express or implied authority been provided to show that L Taylor has any standing to form a contract with another party. This breaches the strict requirements of Section 43 of the Companies Act 2006.

The PSA does not include a site plan defining the area where the claimant is authorised to act. The only plan provided by the claimant, Exhibit 4, is an aerial map downloaded from the internet, then amended with a few coloured blobs.

The claimant has provided a stock image of a sign, Exhibit 2, but has failed to show any clear and legible images of signs that are allegedly on site. It is trite law that without signage, no contract can have been formed with the defendant.
No entrance signs have been provided warning that a motorist will be bound by terms and conditions displayed on other signs within the site.

The single image of the defendant's car in Exhibit 3 shows it parked near to an unreadable sign of some description that is incapable of forming a contract with a motorist. 

The claimant has repeatedly stated that the defendant failed to display a permit in their vehicle, but has provided no proof to this effect. The stock computer image of a sign they allege is situated at the location in question states that motorists must display a permit in the front windscreen, but has failed to provide any images of the car's windscreen to demonstrate this alleged breach.

The claimant also states that a notice to driver (NTD) was affixed to the windscreen at the time of the alleged event, but has failed to provide any images of the car's windscreen to support this. It is averred that no such notice to driver was ever issued, and the claimant is put to strict proof that the contrary is true. It is reasonable to assume that on the balance of probabilities, had a NTD been given, a photographic image of it affixed to the windscreen would have been provided. The fact that no such proof has been given implies that on the balance of probabilities so such NTD was ever given.

The claimant states that they complied with the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. However, the Act states in paragraph 8 (2) (f) that where a NTD has been given, the parking company is not permitted to obtain the vehicle keeper's data until after day 28, and by day 56, starting with the day after the alleged event.

The claimant has admitted in Exhibit 5 that they breached this strict requirement by sending a notice to keeper on the 12th of February 2018, following the issue of a notice to driver on the 2nd of February 2018,10 days after the date beginning the day after that of the alleged event. 
Not only is this a breach of the PoFA 2012, but it is also a breach of the claimant's Keeper At Date Of Event (KADOE) contract with the DVLA. It is therefore also a breach of the DPA/GDPR because the keeper's data has been obtained and processed without reasonable cause.



jordan91, I suggest you bung this into a Supplementary Witness Statement and fire it off to the court and the claimant asap, along with a summary cost assessment citing the claimant's unreasonable behaviour.

You should also complain to the DVLA and DVLA KADOE team about the claimant obtaining and processing your data to soon, in breach of the PoFA and KADOE contract.

Contact details for the above: -

ccrt@dvla.gov.uk and KADOEservice.support@dvla.gov.uk

 

jordan91

Fruitcake said:

Para 9 states that the claimant was instructed by the landowner, but no proof of land ownership has been provided.

The alleged contract with the landowner, Exhibit 1, referred to as a parking service agreement (PSA), actually states that agreement is with a person called L Taylor who is authorised by the landowner, but the landowner has not been identified, nor has any express or implied authority been provided to show that L Taylor has any standing to form a contract with another party. This breaches the strict requirements of Section 43 of the Companies Act 2006.

The PSA does not include a site plan defining the area where the claimant is authorised to act. The only plan provided by the claimant, Exhibit 4, is an aerial map downloaded from the internet, then amended with a few coloured blobs.

The claimant has provided a stock image of a sign, Exhibit 2, but has failed to show any clear and legible images of signs that are allegedly on site. It is trite law that without signage, no contract can have been formed with the defendant.
No entrance signs have been provided warning that a motorist will be bound by terms and conditions displayed on other signs within the site.

The single image of the defendant's car in Exhibit 3 shows it parked near to an unreadable sign of some description that is incapable of forming a contract with a motorist. 

The claimant has repeatedly stated that the defendant failed to display a permit in their vehicle, but has provided no proof to this effect. The stock computer image of a sign they allege is situated at the location in question states that motorists must display a permit in the front windscreen, but has failed to provide any images of the car's windscreen to demonstrate this alleged breach.

The claimant also states that a notice to driver (NTD) was affixed to the windscreen at the time of the alleged event, but has failed to provide any images of the car's windscreen to support this. It is averred that no such notice to driver was ever issued, and the claimant is put to strict proof that the contrary is true. It is reasonable to assume that on the balance of probabilities, had a NTD been given, a photographic image of it affixed to the windscreen would have been provided. The fact that no such proof has been given implies that on the balance of probabilities so such NTD was ever given.

The claimant states that they complied with the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. However, the Act states in paragraph 8 (2) (f) that where a NTD has been given, the parking company is not permitted to obtain the vehicle keeper's data until after day 28, and by day 56, starting with the day after the alleged event.

The claimant has admitted in Exhibit 5 that they breached this strict requirement by sending a notice to keeper on the 12th of February 2018, following the issue of a notice to driver on the 2nd of February 2018,10 days after the date beginning the day after that of the alleged event. 
Not only is this a breach of the PoFA 2012, but it is also a breach of the claimant's Keeper At Date Of Event (KADOE) contract with the DVLA. It is therefore also a breach of the DPA/GDPR because the keeper's data has been obtained and processed without reasonable cause.



jordan91, I suggest you bung this into a Supplementary Witness Statement and fire it off to the court and the claimant asap, along with a summary cost assessment citing the claimant's unreasonable behaviour.

You should also complain to the DVLA and DVLA KADOE team about the claimant obtaining and processing your data to soon, in breach of the PoFA and KADOE contract.

Contact details for the above: -

ccrt@dvla.gov.uk and KADOEservice.support@dvla.gov.uk

 

Thank you so much for this.

Would I still be able to send off a Supplementary Witness Statement even though the court case is a matter of days away? 

And in my witness statement, I am claiming £247. Are you suggesting I retract that and add more on due to their unreasonable behaviour? And if so, how much?

Coupon-mad

Only true costs incurred, like taking a day off work for the hearing.

If a poster is telling you that you can do a supplementary WS then they mean, yes you can.  Now.

jordan91

Okay, I have sent off a Supplementary Witness Statement which has been received by both the court and the claimant ready for my video hearing tomorrow. 

One thing I have only just noticed is that on the photo of my car it states 2 Feb 2018 but all the forms claim that the date the PCN was issued was 12/02/2018. Would I be able to bring this up tomorrow even though I haven't acknowledged it in my Witness Statement?

Redx

Yes , is the simple answer , because signage and paperwork errors are covered in the Defence and WS and the submitted exhibits , so you can comment on all of them if you wish , even their claim form or invoice

Fruitcake

jordan91 said:

Okay, I have sent off a Supplementary Witness Statement which has been received by both the court and the claimant ready for my video hearing tomorrow. 

One thing I have only just noticed is that on the photo of my car it states 2 Feb 2018 but all the forms claim that the date the PCN was issued was 12/02/2018. Would I be able to bring this up tomorrow even though I haven't acknowledged it in my Witness Statement?

This is exactly what I pointed out in my previous post, and you should have included in your supplementary WS that you told us you sent.

2 Feb 2018 - Date of alleged event = date the claimant states they issued an NTD.
12/02/2018 - Date of NTK as stated by the claimant = 10 days after issue of the NTD, counting from the day after that of the alleged event.
The NTK was issued too soon according to the PoFA para 8 that states the PPC cannot apply to the DVLA until day 28 where a NTD has been given.
The PPC should not have applied to the DVLA before day 28 (or after day 56), counting from the day after the alleged event.
The claimant cannot say, there was no NTD, because they have stated it in writing to you.

You need to read the PoFA until you understand the significance of this so you can bring it up at the hearing, even if the judge doesn't allow the supplementary WS because it was received late.
You are permitted to comment on the claimant's WS and anything their legal rep says even if you haven't previously mentioned it in your defence. The claimant gets to speak first, so take notes then bring up errors and your points when it is your turn.
When you mention the PoFA failure, say where the PPC has stated this by referring to the document, page number, paragraph number if there is one, or something like, half-way down the page in para beginning with the words XXXXXXX.
State that not only is this a breach of the PoFA, it is a breach of the claimant's ATA's CoP, and the DVLA's KADOE agreement with the PPC, and is therefore a DPA/GDPR breach because the claimant had no right to obtain the registered keeper's data on day ten.

Have crib notes written out as well with bullet points you want to mention during the hearing.

You should also make all the complaints I suggested.

jordan91

Fruitcake said:

jordan91 said:

Okay, I have sent off a Supplementary Witness Statement which has been received by both the court and the claimant ready for my video hearing tomorrow. 

One thing I have only just noticed is that on the photo of my car it states 2 Feb 2018 but all the forms claim that the date the PCN was issued was 12/02/2018. Would I be able to bring this up tomorrow even though I haven't acknowledged it in my Witness Statement?

This is exactly what I pointed out in my previous post, and you should have included in your supplementary WS that you told us you sent.

2 Feb 2018 - Date of alleged event = date the claimant states they issued an NTD.
12/02/2018 - Date of NTK as stated by the claimant = 10 days after issue of the NTD (counting from the day after that of the alleged event.
The NTK was issued too soon according to the PoFA para 8 that states the PPC cannot apply to the DVLA until day 28 where a NTD has been given.

Well, scrap what I said because I included everything that you said so at least I covered it. 

Thanks again.

Has anyone else got any tips for tomorrow as I am of course a little apprehensive about the hearing?