Uploading a file

Fruitcake

If/when you have the scammer's WS, please post it here for the regulars to look at and comment, hopefully before you need to submit yours.
ONLY redact YOUR personal data, and tell us if the scammers have redacted anything.

Not_A_Hope

Cheers Fruitcake. I certainly will though by the sound if it they normally send them out at the last minute. I will post a copy of my redacted WS for comment when it is ready. I haven't had any positive feedback on the benefit of getting my passenger to provide a witness statement. As Umkomaas points out the photos will demonstrate the inadequate signage. It is just the point about not using the keyboard to enter a VRN but somehow having the first two digits on the ticket that is bothering me. 

Coupon-mad

It'll be a machine error code:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2016/10/peel-centre-machine-failure-transcript.html

Always 2 digits.  We've also seen PP and ER I think.  You should append that transcript (not the Pranskter's blog, the Judge's transcript) to your WS.

Not_A_Hope

Hi Guys,
I have received much sooner than expected a date for a telephone hearing using BT MeetMe  of my case on the 26th May 2021. I must send by no later than 14 days before the hearing i.e. 12th May witness statement and other relevant documents in support of my case.

Could you please review the attached draft witness statement using the following link and provide any feedback:

hxxp://www.dropbox.com/s/cupiatwplwm0ypa/Witness%20Statement%202nd%20March%202021.docx?dl=0

I understand this needs copying and pasting into a browser and hxxp changed to https for the link to operate.

In particular I wonder whether I need to put in further detail on the Southampton Case and Semark-Julian case as in the template WS. Or are these covered suitably in para 8 of the template defence?

Meanwhile I shall continue working on exhibits etc

Cheers 

Jenni_D

https://www.dropbox.com/s/cupiatwplwm0ypa/Witness Statement 2nd March 2021.docx?dl=0

Clickable link.

Umkomaas

In particular I wonder whether I need to put in further detail on the Southampton Case and Semark-Julian case as in the template WS. Or are these covered suitably in para 8 of the template defence?

The Southampton case has been superseded for the purpose of WS reference by the Excel v Wilkinson case. If you're referring to Semark, get the other half of his surname correct 'Jullien'

EXCEL v WILKINSON JUDGMENT

https://www.dropbox.com/s/16qovzulab1szem/G4QZ465V%20Excel%20v%20Wilkinson.pdf?dl=0

add some words about Excel v Wilkinson, into the usual point about the added £60.

 e.g. your extra paragraph could say (wording courtesy of @Coupon-mad):

 At the Bradford County Court, District Judge Claire Jackson (now HHJ Jackson, a Specialist Civil Circuit Judge) decided to hear a 'test case' a few months ago, where £60 had been added to a parking charge despite Judges up and down the country repeatedly disallowing that sum and warning parking firms not to waste court time with such spurious claims.   That case was Excel v Wilkinson: G4QZ465V, heard in July 2020 and leave to appeal was refused and that route was not pursued.  The Judge concluded that such claims are proceedings with 'an improper collateral purpose'.   This Judge - and others who have since copied her words and struck dozens of cases out in late 2020 and into 2021 - went into significant detail and concluded that parking operators (such as this Claimant) are seeking to circumvent CPR 27.14 as well as breaching the Consumer Rights Act 2015.   DJ Hickinbottom has recently struck more cases out in that court area, stating: ''I find that striking out this claim is the only appropriate manner in which the disapproval of the court can be shown''.

Coupon-mad

You can copy from the WS written recently by @jrhys who included Excel v Wilkinson (but I think he missed out a point about lack of standing/landowner authority which any WS should include).

Not_A_Hope

Thanks Umkomaas - your extra paragraph will be most useful

Not_A_Hope

Cheers Coupon- Mad

Not_A_Hope

Hi guys. I would welcome your comments on the attached witness statement I have received from Gladstones.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/mba8q1t6o5ut8sa/Binder3.2.pdf?dl=0
I believe I have enough evidence to challenge their statement that signage is prominent throughout the site in respect of the requirement to enter a VRN. However if you could direct me to any recent standard responses to statements from para 31 on to double recovery (Semark- Jullien), Beavis (VCS case), authority to enforce charges (VCS v HMRC) I would be grateful.
The attached Contract has been redacted by Gladstones.