DCBLegal/CCPC County Court

Jenni_D

No - many withdraw once they see the Defendant's WS.  

Coupon-mad

I warn everyone that I think it's a mistake to hang your hat on forbidding signs as an argument. I think it is fairly tenuous and whilst worth a try, I'd expect most Judges not to be persuaded by PCM v Bull, so be ready to 'read the room' (or virtual room) and move on to better points.

For example, he says there were windscreen PCNs applied every time but all we see is a photo of what could be an empty yellow envelope on the windscreen - and why are these supposed PCNs that he says 'alerted the driver' not in evidence? Not even a reproduced copy from the system? 

All we have is very late non-POFA NTKs. None of those can legally hold the keeper liable in law due to the late service date and lack of 8(2)f wording about keeper liability, which cannot exist in this case.

And one of those sites appears to be subject to Council enforcement because he's plonked his sign above COUNCIL loading bay and 'business permits' statutory signage on street.  Those signs are from the Local Authority!

That part CANNOT be private land.  You've looked into that and checked out the Local Traffic Orders online, to pinpoint the part of the road that is under statutory control and has a business permit scheme, I presume? This is vital because Terry can't issue PCNs to cars on Council public highway.  Signs like those show it is public highway, at least in part.

And no evidence picks out exactly where your car was!  Put the hired legal rep on the spot about this at the hearing,

Who were you awaiting a permit from? Council? Or Terry?

Oh, and he is trying to get £70 extra per PCN for so-called 'work' to recover the alleged debts - but there is zero evidence of ANY letters after the LBCs dated 2017 which followed straight after the reminders and the LBCs said the alleged debt was £100.  The BPA Code makes it clear that the NTK and reminder letters are mandatory and come BEFORE any debt recovery stage, so if you move on to LBC at £100 then, well, it's £100.  No more. Not £170.

He could have proceeded to court in 2017 and the delay is entirely his choice and has absolutely not caused an extra £70 per PCN, nor can he benefit from any added interest as some sort of 8% pa uplift reward, for dragging his heels for 5 years.

His argument about the added fake costs not undermining the CPRs and small claims capped legal fees makes no sense at all.  I don't even understand his point! ...and I bet the claim forms on the right include +£50 capped legal fee anyway!

The Beavis case included Lord Neuberger saying 'none of this means ParkingEye could charge whatever it liked' because the parking charge must be proportionate to the purported legitimate interest, not an unconscionable sum like £170!  Also the ParlingEye v Somerfield case (at High court stage, paras 419-428 ish) kicked added fees into touch on the same 'modern penalty law' basis as Beavis. In Somerfield, £75 was not a penalty but £135 (for fake admin fee enhancement) was.

FineFighter

Coupon-mad said:

For example, he says there were windscreen PCNs applied every time but all we see is a photo of what could be an empty yellow envelope on the windscreen - and why are these supposed PCNs that he says 'alerted the driver' not in evidence? Not even a reproduced copy from the system? 

All we have is very late non-POFA PCNs.

In the SAR, they provided "digital copies" of the windshield notices, but wasn't sure how useful these were, other than maybe to emphasise the point about not knowing who I was entering into a contract with. I have a paragraph on this, but not sure how useful it will be.

And one of those sites appears to be subject yo Council enforcement because he's plonked his sign above COUNCIL loading bay and 'business permits' statutory signage on street.

That part CANNOT be private land.  You've looked into that and checked out the Local Traffic Orders online, to pinpoint the part of the road that is under statutory control and has a business permit scheme, I presume? This is vital because Terry can't issue PCNs to cars on Council public highway.  Signs like those show it is public highway, at least in part.

And no evidence picks out exactly where your car was!  Put the hired legal rep on the spot about this at the hearing,

I've tried to look into local traffic orders but it gets quite confusing for London (LB Greenwich) and I couldn't find who was responsible.
I have a photo that the parking attendant took, showing the car, and lack of road markings, as well as how difficult it is to make out the signs. This was the grounds I won at PoPLA, that It wasn't clear who controlled what. 

It was a long time ago so I don't know what the driver was thinking parking there, perhaps they had hoped they had found somewhere with a loophole and a bit easier to park vs the extortionate o2 parking, but that's just a Keeper trying to guess the Driver's intentions.....

Coupon-mad

If you were not the driver you win this hands down. Just saying. Easy win!

In the SAR, they provided "digital copies" of the windshield notices.

But they are not in evidence in this claim at all (windscreen please, not 'windshield' that's a horrible Americanism rather like 'parking lot').

FineFighter

Coupon-mad said:

If you were not the driver you win this hands down. Just saying. Easy win!

In the SAR, they provided "digital copies" of the windshield notices.

I certainly hope so!

I've finally completed my WS - haven't had much time to critique their WS, other than to take advantage of the redacted landowner contract. 

Grateful for any comments or constructive criticism. 
(Its a rough draft with the first section - 10 paragraphs or so - written by me - and the rest lifted from others' WS.)

I'm particularly wondering about removing section 7  and the screen grab from companies house - not sure how much this helps or hinders my case as I'm sure they'll say its just a typo or somesuch.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/30pmb0ccw9dfzzl/Witness%20Statement%20Draft%20REDACTED.pdf?dl=0


In case anyone is curious to see the claimants WS, that’s here: 
https://www.dropbox.com/s/hxnave850q9b39k/DCBLegal WS redacted.pdf?dl=0

Not_A_Hope

That is the claimant's WS not yours

FineFighter

Whoops sorry about that! I’ve amended to hopefully show the right document!

https://www.dropbox.com/s/30pmb0ccw9dfzzl/Witness%20Statement%20Draft%20REDACTED.pdf?dl=0

FineFighter

Coupon-mad said:

I warn everyone that I think it's a mistake to hang your hat on forbidding signs as an argument. I think it is fairly tenuous and whilst worth a try, I'd expect most Judges not to be persuaded by PCM v Bull, so be ready to 'read the room' (or virtual room) and move on to better points.

For example, he says there were windscreen PCNs applied every time but all we see is a photo of what could be an empty yellow envelope on the windscreen - and why are these supposed PCNs that he says 'alerted the driver' not in evidence? Not even a reproduced copy from the system? 

All we have is very late non-POFA NTKs. None of those can legally hold the keeper liable in law due to the late service date and lack of 8(2)f wording about keeper liability, which cannot exist in this case.

And one of those sites appears to be subject to Council enforcement because he's plonked his sign above COUNCIL loading bay and 'business permits' statutory signage on street.  Those signs are from the Local Authority!

That part CANNOT be private land.  You've looked into that and checked out the Local Traffic Orders online, to pinpoint the part of the road that is under statutory control and has a business permit scheme, I presume? This is vital because Terry can't issue PCNs to cars on Council public highway.  Signs like those show it is public highway, at least in part.

And no evidence picks out exactly where your car was!  Put the hired legal rep on the spot about this at the hearing,

Who were you awaiting a permit from? Council? Or Terry?

Oh, and he is trying to get £70 extra per PCN for so-called 'work' to recover the alleged debts - but there is zero evidence of ANY letters after the LBCs dated 2017 which followed straight after the reminders and the LBCs said the alleged debt was £100.  The BPA Code makes it clear that the NTK and reminder letters are mandatory and come BEFORE any debt recovery stage, so if you move on to LBC at £100 then, well, it's £100.  No more. Not £170.

He could have proceeded to court in 2017 and the delay is entirely his choice and has absolutely not caused an extra £70 per PCN, nor can he benefit from any added interest as some sort of 8% pa uplift reward, for dragging his heels for 5 years.

His argument about the added fake costs not undermining the CPRs and small claims capped legal fees makes no sense at all.  I don't even understand his point! ...and I bet the claim forms on the right include +£50 capped legal fee anyway!

The Beavis case included Lord Neuberger saying 'none of this means ParkingEye could charge whatever it liked' because the parking charge must be proportionate to the purported legitimate interest, not an unconscionable sum like £170!  Also the ParlingEye v Somerfield case (at High court stage, paras 419-428 ish) kicked added fees into touch on the same 'modern penalty law' basis as Beavis. In Somerfield, £75 was not a penalty but £135 (for fake admin fee enhancement) was.

Thank you for your further comments, sorry I missed them til now! 

Is it worth removing the photos in my WS that have pictures of my car parked there? 

I had to use those because I didn’t have my own photos showing the paucity and difficult to see signage, but I might remove the first one, on phoenix avenue, as it isn’t adding much. 

With regards to the rebuttal, Eg with regards to his claimed interest being unjustified, where does one practically put this? In the beginning or the end of the WS?

I haven’t added the Somerfield case to my WS bundle but sounds like this would be worth adding….

Coupon-mad

Is it worth removing the photos in my WS that have pictures of my car parked there? 

Yes, I would not help their case with any photos of the car and where it was.  Just remove them and let them prove where the car was, and the vagueness will help you.

With regards to the rebuttal, Eg with regards to his claimed interest being unjustified, where does one practically put this? In the beginning or the end of the WS?

In the section about the added false £70, so maybe para 31.

I haven’t added the Somerfield case to my WS bundle but sounds like this would be worth adding…

Pretty sure it's standard in the WS examples we've pointed you to, and/or isn't it linked in the NEWBIES thread section on WS?  You need the ACTUAL court transcript from the High Court stage, not Court of Appeal and find the section where the Judge decides 'Is this a Penalty?' which is paras 428-429 ish.

And just to add, how will you explain to the Judge truthfully that you DON'T KNOW who was driving, when the driver has left a handwritten note in one photo, which makes it clear who the driver was (if it was you, don't lie).  That note shows who parked it.

FineFighter

Coupon-mad said:

Is it worth removing the photos in my WS that have pictures of my car parked there? 

Yes, I would not help their case with any photos of the car and where it was.  Just remove them and let them prove where the car was, and the vagueness will help you.

With regards to the rebuttal, Eg with regards to his claimed interest being unjustified, where does one practically put this? In the beginning or the end of the WS?

In the section about the added false £70, so maybe para 31.

I haven’t added the Somerfield case to my WS bundle but sounds like this would be worth adding…

Pretty sure it's standard in the WS examples we've pointed you to, and/or isn't it linked in the NEWBIES thread section on WS?  You need the ACTUAL court transcript from the High Court stage, not Court of Appeal and find the section where the Judge decides 'Is this a Penalty?' which is paras 428-429 ish.

And just to add, how will you explain to the Judge truthfully that you DON'T KNOW who was driving, when the driver has left a handwritten note in one photo, which makes it clear who the driver was (if it was you, don't lie).  That note shows who parked it.

Thank you C-m, I'll make those changes and link the revised WS in a few moments. 
(I decided to add it to the end of section 22, hope it still makes sense!)

The handwritten note lived in my car for about 6-12 months, and was for when I parked at work. I don't think I ever removed it in that time period.....