VCS court defence check [Now WS check please]

samc999

Redx said:

1) yes

2) don't miss any deadlines

3) witness statement plus exhibits plus summary costs assessment , 3 items for your bundle , exhibits are numbered with your initials plus a number , as in ABC/001 etc

2) you are asking for a legal assessment of your case , we leave that to the court

Thanks Redx, I assume regarding 3) that all of these can remain in the single WS document, and this is the single and only document I will submit to the court? 

Is there anything revise/edit in my document? 

Thanks

Fruitcake

Check the IPC CoP that was in place at the time of the alleged event to see what it says about entrance signs and quote sections that have not been complied with. For example, should there be a sign warning motorists that this is private land, or should there be a sign with a large letter P etcetera, or should signs face the direction of traffic flow?

XX-01 is very good, especially with the entrance sign on the right being hidden by a pole. Perhaps you should circle it to highlight this to the judge. If you didn't know it was there until you went back on foot, then say so.
XX-02 is unreadable when stationary so it would be impossible to read from a moving car.
XX-03 needs a key or an arrow and text like you did to indicate the position of the bays. I didn't spot the circle round the sign at first so a judge might miss it as well.

XX-04 needs something to explain that it is in a separate part of the car park, or even a separate car park, with a separate entrance. Even if you saw it, on the balance of probabilities the average person could reasonably believe it did not apply to Bay 2.

The parking terms displayed on the signs state that a parking permit is required. There is no offer to motorists without a permit, so there can be no acceptance, and no contract can be formed.
There is no information about what constitutes a valid permit or where or how you could obtain one, so that could be construed as an unfair term in breach of the CRA 2015.

The signs don't state what the camera images will be used for. This is a minor point but I believe it breaches the GDPR requirements.

Hold off sending your WS as long as possible in the hope you get to see theirs before you need to submit yours, but do not miss the filing deadline.

If/when you receive their WS, show it to us asap. ONLY redact YOUR personal data. Even if you receive their WS after you have sent yours, show it to us anyway as there is nothing stopping you from sending a supplementary WS afterwards. It will be entirely up to the court if they accept a supplementary WS after the filing deadline, but it is worth doing anyway.

Redx

Look at the WS by @jrhys and also @nosy , theirs show how to assemble it and I have nothing to add , never done one , never been to court about a PCN , never had a private PCN either , avoidance is better than going through what you victims go through 🤔🤔

I never look at doc links from my mobile device either !

samc999

Fruitcake said:

Check the IPC CoP that was in place at the time of the alleged event to see what it says about entrance signs and quote sections that have not been complied with. For example, should there be a sign warning motorists that this is private land, or should there be a sign with a large letter P etcetera, or should signs face the direction of traffic flow?

XX-01 is very good, especially with the entrance sign on the right being hidden by a pole. Perhaps you should circle it to highlight this to the judge. If you didn't know it was there until you went back on foot, then say so.
XX-02 is unreadable when stationary so it would be impossible to read from a moving car.
XX-03 needs a key or an arrow and text like you did to indicate the position of the bays. I didn't spot the circle round the sign at first so a judge might miss it as well.

XX-04 needs something to explain that it is in a separate part of the car park, or even a separate car park, with a separate entrance. Even if you saw it, on the balance of probabilities the average person could reasonably believe it did not apply to Bay 2.

The parking terms displayed on the signs state that a parking permit is required. There is no offer to motorists without a permit, so there can be no acceptance, and no contract can be formed.
There is no information about what constitutes a valid permit or where or how you could obtain one, so that could be construed as an unfair term in breach of the CRA 2015.

Hold off sending your WS as long as possible in the hope you get to see theirs before you need to submit yours, but do not miss the filing deadline.

If/when you receive their WS, show it to us asap. ONLY redact YOUR personal data. Even if you receive their WS after you have sent yours, show it to us anyway as there is nothing stopping you from sending a supplementary WS afterwards. It will be entirely up to the court if they accept a supplementary WS after the filing deadline, but it is worth doing anyway.

Thanks this is great. 
I have checked the IPC CoP, the only thing that really stands out is that signs should be illuminated if enforcement takes placed outside daylight hours. I will add this in. 

XX-02 - I'm not sure what you mean, Google docs had scrambled the image but it is readable in MS word. Or do you mean the font is too small for the driver? 

XX-03 Okay thanks will add this. 

XX-04 Okay thanks will add this. 

I will also add the paragraph about the parking permit as a separate point. 

I believe as long as possible would be next Monday as this is exactly 14 days to 28th. 

Thanks

EDIT: Just called the court and nothing has been received yet, is this a trick where they get to see mine and just have theirs accepted late? 

Fruitcake

XX-02, yes the font is too small to read from a moving car, and it is at an angle to the direction of traffic. Can it really be read without zooming in? I would aver that it is not initially visible because of its position, and the lamp post that hides it, and is unreadable once it comes into view due to the fleeting time it is visible to a driver who would actually be expecting a prominent sign that is facing them. In addition, the driver would be looking for pedestrians and avoiding parked cars, not looking at a sign at right angles to their direction of travel.
Stopping to read the signs is not practical because it would mean causing a hazard and obstruction. In any case, it is reasonable to expect that signage showing terms and conditions would be prominently placed and displayed.

Yes they will hope to see yours first, just as you are hoping to see theirs first. Courts seem to be far more lenient with claimants filing late than with defendants. However, the courts are busy so sometimes the WS has been filed but the court hasn't registered it, although they should send you a copy within the CPR timescales as well.
Make sure you don't miss your deadline, so send it in the morning just in case there is a problem, and remember to send it to the claimant as well as the court.

samc999

Fruitcake said:

XX-02, yes the font is too small to read from a moving car, and it is at an angle to the direction of traffic. Can it really be read without zooming in? I would aver that it is not initially visible because of its position, and the lamp post that hides it, and is unreadable once it comes into view due to the fleeting time it is visible to a driver who would actually be expecting a prominent sign that is facing them. In addition, the driver would be looking for pedestrians and avoiding parked cars, not looking at a sign at right angles to their direction of travel.
Stopping to read the signs is not practical because it would mean causing a hazard and obstruction. In any case, it is reasonable to expect that signage showing terms and conditions would be prominently placed and displayed.

Yes they will hope to see yours first, just as you are hoping to see theirs first. Courts seem to be far more lenient with claimants filing late than with defendants. However, the courts are busy so sometimes the WS has been filed but the court hasn't registered it, although they should send you a copy within the CPR timescales as well.
Make sure you don't miss your deadline, so send it in the morning just in case there is a problem, and remember to send it to the claimant as well as the court.

Thank you so much for all the help, I have updated the original document to add everything you suggested. 
Is this now suitable to complete the index and page numbers? 

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1eBJq0A6cKE2sKyYB9tW4NvQ1vjEV_1zy

Fruitcake

You need to go through your WS and correct spelling and grammar errors. 

I think you should set the scene at para 3 with a statement along the lines that it was night time/dark at the time of the alleged event. I think you could tidy up the follow on paragraphs to make it clearer that following a site visit in daylight it became obvious that the entrance signs are hidden/obscured from the drivers view and not prominent. As a result they would be impossible for a driver to see or read.
There were no signs near bay 2 where the car was parked. The nearest sign to bay 2 appeared to be in a completely separate part of the car park, or possibly in a completely separate car park. If that was the only sign (visible) inside the car park, then say so.

Rather than say there was an absence of signage, I suggest you say there was no visible signage. 

Where you refer to the IPC CoP state the version number that was in place at the time, include the relevant section/paragraph number, and explain how the claimant failed to comply.

For example, the CoP section/para N.N states signs must be illuminated or there must be sufficient other lighting, you should go on to say that the signs aren't illuminated, and then say why other lighting is insufficient (No lamposts/no lights nearby/lights not working/facing away/not illuminated by car headlights because of the hedge etcetera.)

You have the basics; in fact I think you have everything you need to rely on, but you need to read through it from the point of view of someone who wasn't there. You need a good description and explanation of why the driver didn't see the signs.

Spend tomorrow tinkering and fine tuning it ready to submit it on Monday morning.

samc999

Claim has been discontinued, many thanks for all the help. 
I've spent far too many hours on this and would like to reclaim costs. 
However they have cancelled over a week in advance and given notice to me directly. The templates are for people who attended court and so wasted far more time and money. 

Is there a template for cases cancelled in advance or should I just rely on this paragraph?

CPR r.38.6 states that the claimant is liable for the defendant's costs after discontinuance (r.38.6(1)) but that this does not apply to claims allocated to the small claims track (r.38.6(3)). However, the white book states (annotation 38.6.1): "Note that the normal rule as to costs does not apply if a claimant in a case allocated to the small claims track serves a notice of discontinuance although it might be contended that costs should be awarded if a party has behaved unreasonably (r.27.14(2)(d))." I believe it should actually refer to r.27.14(2)(g) as that is the rule which allows the court to award costs for unreasonable behaviour.

Thanks

Coupon-mad

Very good!  ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST!

Yes you can try, just takes one email to court do nothing to lose.

For how to write this, see this case:

Premier Park Ltd ordered to pay £500 in costs for unreasonable late discontinuance at Southampton County Court (includes all orders and judgment transcript following his application for a costs hearing:  Premier Park v S Jones):

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6271727/residential-pcn-premier-park-ltd-ordered-to-pay-500-in-costs-at-southampton-county-court

The letter to the Judge asking for costs is interesting; it was treated as an 'application' by the Court and can be copied and adapted by others to try for the same:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/pjuljss3bo0totu/04%20C%20TWIMC%20%2B%20Costs%20Hearing%20Legal%20Arguement.pdf?dl=0

The OP said:

"The 05 Witness Statement is interesting and quotes a post from this forum. The statement by Mr Byers-Nolan was riddled with errors and inconsistencies, ignored the main points of the case and was delivered so late that the Judge ignored it. As he did with my skeleton argument…
 
You might think I would be steaming with anger with PP, BW Legal, DRP, Gladstones, CST Law, Zenith Collections et al, but no. If POPLA are going to boast on their website that they take “into consideration the relevant law, guidance and standards and the BPA Code of Practice.” they should do exactly that. Don’t employ someone with experience of “conflict resolution” and “problem solving” to decide on points of law. How about employing someone with a legal background to decide on legal matters? The new Government CoP will hopefully remove POPLA from the equation.

And finally, for the Premier Park Ltd and BW Legal employees who lurk on this forum: we still have a BIG problem with the other 24 PCNs you plastered my vehicles with, don’t we?"

samc999

Thanks for the information. I sent an email in and just spoke to the court.

They say that that since I am asking for costs from the Claimant that the judge may decide to go ahead with the hearing after all? I hope this isn't the case!? I certainly would not have filed for costs if it risked the heading being reinstated! 

Thanks