Ccj and defence

KeithP

On entering the street, I did not see no signs about park.

To remove the double negative, change that wording in your para 3 to something like...
On entering the street, I did not see any signs about parking.

Coupon-mad

3. I pulled in to 34/38 Woodford road, Bramhall, Stockport, SK71PA on the 9/12/2019, i am unfamiliar with this road and have never been on it. It looks like a normal pull though road, where the double yellow lines continue round onto the "private road" giving it the feel this is a normal council pull though to park up in. Coming in from the left, i noticed no clear signage, Such as car parks and street parking where there are clear large signs on poles, made noticeable. 

Have you amended this part yet?  I was just trying to work out what you mean by a 'pull through road' doesn't mean anything.  Do you mean it is a cul de sac, or just a side road?  Change the phrase ''pull through'' although I understand you might have already changed it.

4.  On that day it was December, dark and crowded with people gathering and chatting up and down the streets. As my baby was franticly screaming as she needed  breastfeeding.

Should be:

frantically

And have you used the wording about Excel v Wilkinson and attached that transcript as an exhibit too?  

I can see you've had lots of advice including wording about the Equality Act 2010 so it would be good to copy and paste your current draft again here as it's hard to know what your draft now looks like, in full.

This PCN should never have been ignored and we haven't advised that in 8 years, so appeal if you ever get another one.

Le_Kirk

On entering the street, I did not see no signs about park. 

You might want to consider that sentence - it makes not sense and in fact it is a double negative.  Be careful when sending documents to a court for a judge to read, they might take it literally.  Try: -

On entering the street, I did not see no any signs about parking. 

5.         On the 18th of December 2019 I sent in an appeal to explain I pulled in to breastfeed and seen no signage, till after I got the PCN and went to observe the signs I missed.

Change the above to: -

5.         On the 18th of December 2019 I sent in lodged an appeal to explain I pulled in to breastfeed and had seen no signage. till After I got received the PCN and went to observe I returned to the site to research and to look for the alleged signs I missed.  From this research it is obvious the signs were not seen because ................

shortysky

this is what i have changed it to... 

I am the Defendant against whom this claim is made. The facts are true to the best of my belief and my account has been prepared based upon my own knowledge and online resources.

2.         In my statement I refer to photographic exhibits within the evidence supplied with this statement, to support my defence. I will say as follows: 

The Claimant are put to strict proof, by means of contemporaneous and unredacted evidence of a chain of authority flowing from the Landowner of the relevant land to the Claimant, Civil Enforcement Ltd, Company number 05645677, authorising the Claimant to issue Parking Charge Notices, and to enforce such charges by means of civil proceedings.   It is my understanding that the contract between the Landowner and the company appointed to manage this site is with a company called "Creative Parking."  If this is the case, then the Claimant has no authority to litigate on their behalf.  The Claimant is put to strict proof.

 

Claimant has inflated the claim from £100.00 rising to £182.00. This additional cost amounts to more than "double recovery" of fees that are already part of core charge on the Notice to keeper.  This is also in breach of the Beavis Judgement and in breach of the Consumer Rights (grey list) 2015 Sch 2 and is an abuse of process to attempt to recover sums they are not entitled to.

Claimant's trade body, the BPA, has no legal status so the Defendant requests the Claimant gives a full explanation of the authority they intend to rely on regarding this add on amount.  

Claimant are put to strict proof that their signage complied with their CoP and passes the test for Beavis visibility.  The signage at this location is clearly unlit SEE EXHIBIT CD1 nor prominent for approaching vehicles and as this alleged breach occurred in the hours of darkness, as shown on the Notice to Keeper, it would have been impossible to see the signs which are in place.

 

3.        In the alternative on 9th December 2019 at 5.59 I pulled into a service road and parked outside a Pizza Express restaurant on Woodford Road, Stockport. I pulled into the last parking bay outside pizza express, to breast feed my 2-month-old child at this point I was still in the car, it was a busy night and I recall the streets being busy. I was breastfeeding in the car for roughly an hour or more, I then needed to change my babies’ clothes and nappy, as she had been sick on herself. My passenger did however leave the car to get some refreshments from pizza express. I calmed down and feed baby, so I could continue to drive safely. It was a tense drive as I was a new driver and mum with a crying hungry baby on board. I was shaky and on edge. My passenger came out with the food and once I had tended to my babies needs, we ate in the car and left as I felt it was safe to do so.

 

4.     On entering the service road it was dark and the path busy with crowed pedestrians. I did could not see any signs about parking nor on leaving the road. The darkness is evident on the claimants PNC images. My headlights are on. SEE PHOTO EXHIBIT CD2.

 

5.       Upon receipt of the PCN I made a subsequent visit to the location in daylight hours. On this occasion I observed some small signs which were not illuminated or prominent. Photos of the signs. SEE PHOTO EXHIBIT CD3. I pulled up into the last bay where I could not see any signs, I pulled up outside of the window of pizza express. Past the door. SEE PHOTO EXHIBIT CD4

5.         On the 13th of December 2019I received a Notice to Keeper (NTK), see claimant's Exhibit ????, for an alleged parking event on land at 34 - 38 Woodford Road, Stockport. I appealed on the 18th of December 2019, stating that I did not leave the vehicle as I was breastfeeding an infant under six months, whilst my passenger did in fact leave the vehicle to make purchase for us from pizza express. I stated I did not see any signage on entering or leaving the street.

 

6.      Also, it should be noted that this specific restaurant is located at number 32, Woodford Road, Stockport, which is outside the area stated on the notice to keeper.
See Exhibit CD5

 

6.         On the 18th of December 2019 I followed the claimants inhouse appeal procedure, but they failed to mitigate and uphold my appeal. I was going to appeal to POPLA with more evidence after id done some work on this appeal. But unfortunately became ill and then moved home.

 

 

7.       I later received a court claim. The Particulars of Claim were vague, stating only that it was for an alleged parking event on land at Woodford Road, Stockport. It should be noted that this road is approximately six miles long and has several car parks serving various businesses and residential properties along its length. The claimant is put to strict proof.

 

7.         The Equality Act 2010 prohibits direct and indirect discrimination against a person who has protected characteristics within the meaning of the Act.
Section 17 para 4 of the Act states that reasonable adjustments must be made for a person who is breastfeeding an infant under 6 months of age. This was brought to the claimant’s attention in my appeal, so it is in my belief the claimant’s rejection of my initial appeal was discriminatory.

 

8.       It took approximately around an hour to breastfeed my child, and before it was safe to drive. This did not involve the obvious requirements for hygiene. A reasonable adjustment in this instance would have been to extend the permitted parking situation in line with my situation.

 

10.   The claimants code of practise states they must make necessary adjustments in line with the Equalities Act. Therefore, together with their inadequate signage, the claimant has failed to make reasonable adjustments.

11.   I do not believe the claimant has suffered any loss regarding this “de minimis” matter.

8.       Upon confirmation that attendance at any hearing would result in a loss of leave, I will ask for my fixed witness costs of £95 as specified by CPR Practice Direction 27, 7.3(1), and due under CPR 27.14(2)(e).

9.       As a litigant-in-person I have had to spend considerable time researching the law online, attempting to correctly interpret the legal terminology, preparing my defence, and preparing my witness statement.

Statement of Truth

 STATEMENT OF TRUTH

I believe that the facts contained in this defence are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

 

Witness’ signature:

Umkomaas

Have you noticed that your paragraph numbering is a bit of a road crash?  Each and every paragraph needs its own separate number - keep it simple, 1, 2, 3, not 3.11, or 4.viii.

shortysky

yeah I've not sorted out the numbers yet just getting all the paras and wording right, so any help on the actual wording and what it says would be great.

shortysky

and I am the Defendant against whom this claim is made. The facts are true to the best of my belief and my account has been prepared based upon my own knowledge and online resources.

 

2.         In my statement I refer to photographic exhibits within the evidence supplied with this statement, to support my defence. I will say as follows: 

 

3.       The Claimant are put to strict proof, by means of contemporaneous and unredacted evidence of a chain of authority flowing from the Landowner of the relevant land to the Claimant, Civil Enforcement Ltd, Company number 05645677, authorising the Claimant to issue Parking Charge Notices, and to enforce such charges by means of civil proceedings.   It is my understanding that the contract between the Landowner and the company appointed to manage this site is with a company called "Creative Parking."  If this is the case, then the Claimant has no authority to litigate on their behalf.  The Claimant is put to strict proof.

4.      The claimant has inflated the claim from £100.00 rising to £182.00. This additional cost amounts to more than "double recovery" of fees that are already part of core charge on the Notice to keeper.  This is also in breach of the Beavis Judgement and in breach of the Consumer Rights (grey list) 2015 Sch 2 and is an abuse of process to attempt to recover sums they are not entitled to.

5.      Claimant's trade body, the BPA, has no legal status so the Defendant requests the Claimant gives a full explanation of the authority they intend to rely on regarding this add on amount.  

6.      Claimants are put to strict proof that their signage complied with their CoP and passes the test for Beavis visibility.  The signage at this location is clearly unlit SEE EXHIBIT CD1 nor prominent for approaching vehicles and as this alleged breach occurred in the hours of darkness, as shown on the Notice to Keeper, it would have been impossible to see the signs which are in place.

 

7.        In the alternative on 9th December 2019 at 5.59 I pulled into a service road and parked outside a Pizza Express restaurant on Woodford Road, Stockport. I pulled into the last parking bay outside pizza express, to breast feed my 2-month-old child at this point I was still in the car, it was a busy night and I recall the streets being busy. I was breastfeeding in the car for roughly an hour or more, I then needed to change my babies’ clothes and nappy, as she had been sick on herself. My passenger did however leave the car to get some refreshments from pizza express. I calmed down and feed baby, so I could continue to drive safely. It was a tense drive as I was a new driver and mum with a crying hungry baby on board. I was shaky and on edge. My passenger came out with the food and once I had tended to my babies needs, we ate in the car and left as I felt it was safe to do so.

 

8.     On entering the service road it was dark and the path busy with crowed pedestrians. I did not see any signs about parking nor on leaving the road. The darkness is evident on the claimants PNC images. My headlights are on. SEE PHOTO EXHIBIT CD2.

 

9.       Upon receipt of the PCN I made a subsequent visit to the location in daylight hours. On this occasion I observed some small signs which were not illuminated or prominent. Photos of the signs. SEE PHOTO EXHIBIT CD3. Signage near parking bays SEE PHOTO EXHIBIT CD4

10.         On the 13th of December 2019I received a Notice to Keeper (NTK), see claimant's Exhibit ????, for an alleged parking event on land at 34 - 38 Woodford Road, Stockport. I appealed on the 18th of December 2019, stating that I did not leave the vehicle as I was breastfeeding an infant under six months, whilst my passenger did in fact leave the vehicle to make purchase for us from pizza express. I stated I did not see any signage on entering or leaving the street.

 

11.      Also, it should be noted that this specific restaurant is located at number 32, Woodford Road, Stockport, which is outside the area stated on the notice to keeper.
See Exhibit CD5

 

12.         On the 18th of December 2019 I followed the claimants inhouse appeal procedure, but they failed to mitigate and uphold my appeal. I was going to appeal to POPLA with more evidence after id done some work on this appeal. But unfortunately became ill and then moved home.

 

 

13.       I later received a court claim. The Particulars of Claim were vague, stating only that it was for an alleged parking event on land at Woodford Road, Stockport. It should be noted that this road is approximately six miles long and has several car parks serving various businesses and residential properties along its length. The claimant is put to strict proof.

 

14.         The Equality Act 2010 prohibits direct and indirect discrimination against a person who has protected characteristics within the meaning of the Act.
Section 17 para 4 of the Act states that reasonable adjustments must be made for a person who is breastfeeding an infant under 6 months of age. This was brought to the claimant’s attention in my appeal, so it is in my belief the claimant’s rejection of my initial appeal was discriminatory.

 

15.       It took approximately around an hour to breastfeed my child, and before it was safe to drive. This did not involve the obvious requirements for hygiene. A reasonable adjustment in this instance would have been to extend the permitted parking situation in line with my situation.

 

16.   The claimants code of practise states they must make necessary adjustments in line with the Equalities Act. Therefore, together with their inadequate signage, the claimant has failed to make reasonable adjustments.

I do not believe the claimant has suffered any loss regarding this “de minimis” matter.

17.       Upon confirmation that attendance at any hearing would result in a loss of leave, I will ask for my fixed witness costs of £95 as specified by CPR Practice Direction 27, 7.3(1), and due under CPR 27.14(2)(e).

18.       As a litigant-in-person I have had to spend considerable time researching the law online, attempting to correctly interpret the legal terminology, preparing my defence, and preparing my witness statement.

Statement of Truth

 STATEMENT OF TRUTH

I believe that the facts contained in this defence are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

KeithP

As this is a Witness Statement, the first sentence of your Statement of Truth should read...

I believe that the facts contained in this Witness Statement are true.

shortysky

Yeah I took that out To remove my name. I’ve spoke to the person next door to pizza express and the landlord doesn’t own 32 so hoping this will be ok, he also said they usually drop out the further you go with the claim. And that the signs didn’t fit the codes of practice for signage. So hoping what I’ve put is enough. 

KeithP

As this is a Witness Statement, the first sentence of your Statement of Truth should read...

I believe that the facts contained in this Witness Statement are true.