*UPDATED* Witness Statement now added!

Cotswoldtony

This is not Freeman of the Land Dross, legal people always group anything that is a threat to their profession as F.M.L rubbish.
I am not a freeman of the land advocate.
I am a Litigant in Person which is totally different and is respected in Court equal to any solicitor, the difference is I have not taken an oath to the Law Society unlike professional law advocates.
If you want to diminish your standing in court hire a solicitor.
I only comment from my experience gained dealing with the courts over many years.
Magistrates Courts have judges with no legal training whatso ever with the only legal person in attendance being the Clerk of the Court who leads the judges to make a judgement of cases like road traffic fines.
County Courts mainly deal with debt with a District Judge who makes the judement based on the facts presented.
Litigants in Person in a County Court will receive a better experience from the judge due to the David and Goliath situation of most cases.
Parking fine debt is a County Court matter which normally starts from Nothampton CC.
Fake advice/crank pot ideas comment is either from someone in the Law Society or an employee who depends on the Status Quo for a salary or will only follow the Law Society rules in court due to lack of experience.





 

Coupon-mad

If you want to diminish your standing in court hire a solicitor.

On this forum, we don't hire solicitors and we've been assisting litigants in person to win (or see discontinued) 99% of claims here for over 5 years.

I only comment from my experience gained dealing with the courts over many years.

Me too, as a lay representative for litigants in person. I am not legally qualified and act purely as a lay person.

But the 'wet ink signature/I want an invoice' crap advice is hopeless.  Mr Semark-Jullien tried that v a parking firm and was doomed to fail.

I met Mr Semark-Jullien in court, who was dismissive of us (myself, Mr Crosby and @ParkingMad who went along to watch) but hung on our coat-tails to win in front of DJ Grand.  In an epic fail, he then went on not to bother to oppose the appeal that was made against his own case alone (which we didn't know about because he thought he was right and didn't want our help) and then he lost his relisted hearing.  He even paid the false costs.

A 'wet ink signature/I want an invoice' is not a defence against a parking charge, where the NTK was the invoice.  We can't have this sort of rubbish fake 'advice' on this forum because some people might think crackpot ideas will work.

Anonymouskeith

Could people please take a look & critique as necessary...

2.            It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper & driver of the vehicle in question, but liability is denied.

3.            When the Defendant used the parking facilities at The Whitworth Centre, Dale Road North on the date in question, he was under the impression that car parking at the site was free, as it had been until less than 12 months prior to the date in question; the Defendant did not see any signage at the time indicating the need to pay in order to use the parking facilities. After receiving communication from the Claimant, the Defendant revisited the site, where he noted whilst there was one single sign at the entrance to the car park alerting drivers of the need to pay for parking, due to the positioning & angle of the sign it was only visible to drivers turning left into the car park, not to drivers turning right (as the Defendant had on the day in question), for whom the sign was both hidden behind a much larger, unrelated sign and obscured by foliage; at no point when turning right into the car park would the sign appear in a drivers forward field of vision i.e. windscreen. In addition to this, the defendant also noted that whilst there was additional signage in the car park itself, this was focused entirely around the outer perimeter, it could not be reasonably expected that this signage would be properly visible to drivers parking in one of the many parking bays in the centre of the car park. The visibility of the signs around the perimeter of the car park is worsened still by both the colour scheme chosen by the Claimant (white text on a purple background) and the fact that the signs are not lit – especially on a particularly gloomy winters day, as the day in question was. Finally, the Defendant also noted on revisiting the car park in question that the ‘pay & display’ ticket machine was not actually inside the car park, but located on one of two footpaths out of the car park into the facility; both the machine & the sign above it faced away from car park, and the machine was totally obscured from view from within the majority of the car park by parked cars in the bays closest to the machine – there was no signage anywhere in the car park indicating the location of the ticket machine.

4.            After receiving continued intimidating communications from the Complainant & third party ‘debt collectors’ acting on the Claimant’s behalf, the Defendant contacted the land owner (The Whitworth Centre), where he spoke to Jason Hedley, an employee of the facility, who informed him that there had originally been much more prominent signage in place in the car park, however the planning department of the local council instructed that it should be removed/altered.

TIA 

Anonymouskeith

2.            It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper & driver of the vehicle in question, but liability is denied.

3.            When the Defendant used the parking facilities at The Whitworth Centre, Dale Road North on 23/01/20, he was under the impression that car parking at the site was free, as it had been until 08/11/19; just over two months prior - the Defendant did not see any signage at the time indicating the need to pay in order to use the parking facilities.

4.         After receiving communication from the Claimant, the Defendant revisited the site, where he noted whilst there was one single sign at the entrance to the car park alerting drivers of the need to pay for parking, no effort had been made to install any additional, explicit & highly visible signage at the entrance to the car park or elsewhere alerting drivers that there was now a need to purchase a ticket in order to park. Because of this, the Defendant believes that the claimant has failed to comply with the British Parking Association’s (of which it is a member) Code of Practice v8 chapter 19.10: “Where there is a change in the terms and conditions that materially affects the motorist then you must make these terms and conditions clear on your signage. Where such changes impose liability where none previously existed then you must consider a transition to allow regular visitors to the site to adjust and familiarise themselves with the changes. Best practice would be the installation of additional/ temporary signage at the entrance and throughout the site making it clear that new terms and conditions apply. This will ensure such that regular visitors who may be familiar with the previous terms become aware of the new ones.”

5.         Because of the above, the Defendant also believes that the Claimant fails Lord Denning’s ‘Red Hand Rule’; with a long history of the car park in question being free to use, a reasonable person could not expect one poorly visible entry sign to be sufficient to alert previous users of the facility that there had been a significant change to the terms & conditions of use.

 

6.         When revisiting the site, the Defendant noted that due to the positioning & angle of the entry sign it was only visible to drivers turning left into the car park, not to drivers turning right (as the Defendant had on the day in question), for whom the sign was both hidden behind a much larger, unrelated sign and obscured by foliage; at no point when turning right into the car park would the sign appear in a drivers forward field of vision i.e. windscreen. The Defendant believes that therefore the entrance signage at the car park in question does not comply with BPA CoP v8 Appendix B in relation to entry signs “The sign should be placed so that it is readable by drivers without their needing to look away from the road ahead.”

7.         The Defendant also notes that whilst there is additional signage in the car park itself, this signage was focused entirely around the outer perimeter of the car park, it could not be reasonably expected that this signage would be properly visible to drivers parking in one of the many parking bays in the centre of the car park. The Defendant believes that because of this, the Claimant has not complied with BPA Cop V8 Chapter 19.3 relating to specific parking terms signage “You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle.” The Defendant believes that signs solely around the perimeter does not satisfy the requirement of ‘throughout the site’, as a driver parking in one bays in the centre of the car park cannot read the signs positioned around the perimeter from their parking space.

8.         The Defendant believes that the Claimant has failed to satisfy BPA CoP v8 Chapter 19.3 in relation to the visibility of the signs in the car park displaying the terms & conditions of parking; “Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.” Whilst relating to entrance signage, it is noteworthy here that the BPA CoP v8 Appendix B states “There must be enough colour contrast between the text and its background, each of which should be a single solid colour. The best way to achieve this is to have black text on a white background, or white text on a black background.” The signs displaying the terms & conditions of parking within the car park featured white text on a mixture of purple & blue backgrounds, as well as purple text on yellow & white backgrounds. The Defendant noted this made it very hard to read any of the text from more than a few metres, particularly the very small font containing the terms & conditions. The defendant therefore does not believe the Claimant has satisfied the BPA CoP requirement of ensuring signage within the car park is easy to see, read & understand.

9.         Unlike the famous ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis, where the text “Failure to comply with the terms & conditions will result in a Parking Charge of: £85” was displayed prominently in large, bold font on the sign within the car park, the consequences of failure to pay for parking as well as the parking charge fee of £100 were buried in the ‘small print’ of the Claimant’s signage, displayed in particularly small font. The Defendant believes that Claimant’s signage is notably different from the highly prominent & remarkable signage displayed in the Beavis case, and that the Claimant has once again fail to satisfy Lord Denning’s ‘Red Hand Rule’ by displaying what is a disproportionately high & unreasonable parking charge’ only within the small print of its signage.

10.          After receiving continued intimidating communications from the Complainant & third party ‘debt collectors’ acting on the Claimant’s behalf, the Defendant contacted the land owner (The Whitworth Centre), where he spoke to Jason Hedley, an employee of the facility, who informed him that there had originally been much more prominent signage in place in the car park, however the planning department of the local council instructed that it should be removed/altered.

11.       The Defendant submits that due to the Claimant’s non-compliance with the BPA CoP v8, and their failings to satisfy Lord Denning’s ‘Red Hand Rule’ as outlined above, that he was not presented with fair opportunity to enter into a contract with the Claimant as he did not see the terms and conditions of parking within the car park in question

I know some of the paragraphs are still a little long, i tried to keep them as short as i could but struggled to get away from it in places. Please feedback

Le_Kirk

As a defence it reads more like a witness statement (WS) and should be short, punchy and restricted to legal/technical arguments.  All you need to do is open the door to such things as signage (although signage is in the standard defence template already) and the fact that the parking conditions had changed without there having been sufficient notice given to the motorist.  Then, in the WS, you can go to town with your narrative and evidence.

Redx

Yes they are long , so try to make it more concise , but it's clear that you now understand the circumstances plus the issues etc , so well done

3 needs altering because it reads like you knew it had changed , whereas I think you found out after returning or after contacting the site person , so not at the time but in subsequent enquiries. The beauty of it now is that it's all there , just needs some tweaking 👍👍

So if you can address both issues , I like it , but others may have changes or critique so see what people say

A few changes and it's good to go , IMHO ( much better than the previous attempt)

Anonymouskeith

Le_Kirk said:

As a defence it reads more like a witness statement (WS) and should be short, punchy and restricted to legal/technical arguments.  All you need to do is open the door to such things as signage (although signage is in the standard defence template already) and the fact that the parking conditions had changed without there having been sufficient notice given to the motorist.  Then, in the WS, you can go to town with your narrative and evidence.

Okay... I think I follow you... so as an example when discussing the entry sign, I would leave out how it was not visible to drivers turning right, covered by another sign etc, & simpoly state 'the defendant believes the entry sign does not comply with bpa cop v8 appendix b , or such like?

Anonymouskeith

Redx said:

Yes they are long , so try to make it more concise , but it's clear that you now understand the circumstances plus the issues etc , so well done

3 needs altering because it reads like you knew it had changed , whereas I think you found out after returning or after contacting the site person , so not at the time but in subsequent enquiries. The beauty of it now is that it's all there , just needs some tweaking 👍👍

So if you can address both issues , I like it , but others may have changes or critique so see what people say

A few changes and it's good to go , IMHO ( much better than the previous attempt)

thats great, your final postings to me last night were immensely helpful, so we got there in the end, thanks a lot again i really appreciate it

Redx

Anonymouskeith said:

Le_Kirk said:

As a defence it reads more like a witness statement (WS) and should be short, punchy and restricted to legal/technical arguments.  All you need to do is open the door to such things as signage (although signage is in the standard defence template already) and the fact that the parking conditions had changed without there having been sufficient notice given to the motorist.  Then, in the WS, you can go to town with your narrative and evidence.

Okay... I think I follow you... so as an example when discussing the entry sign, I would leave out how it was not visible to drivers turning right, covered by another sign etc, & simpoly state 'the defendant believes the entry sign does not comply with bpa cop v8 appendix b , or such like?

Yes , correct , the above defence can then act as a basis for the witness statement in a few months time

But you now have the bones of both statements , only needs fine tuning and P3 fixing

Anonymouskeith

Okay... hopefully my final draft... I fear para's 4 & 8 may still be a little long but I dont want to miss anything out that could be key... am I taking the correct approach here by being reluctant to overlook anything? hopefully para 3 is now better

2.            It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper & driver of the vehicle in question, but liability is denied.

3.            When the Defendant used the parking facilities at The Whitworth Centre, Dale Road North on 23/01/20, he was under the impression that car parking at the site was free, as he had always known it to be; on the date the event took place, the Defendant did not see any signage at the entrance or within the car park indicating the need to pay in order to use the parking facilities. It was only when making enquiries after receiving communication from the Claimant that the Defendant learned of the requirement to pay to park which had come into action on 08/11/19, less than 3 months prior.

4.         After receiving communication from the Claimant, the Defendant revisited the site, where he noted whilst there was one single sign at the entrance to the car park alerting drivers of the need to pay for parking, no effort had been made to install any additional, explicit & highly visible signage at the entrance to the car park or elsewhere alerting drivers that there was a new requirement to purchase a ticket in order to park. Because of this, the Defendant believes that the claimant has failed to comply with the British Parking Association’s (of which it is a member) Code of Practice v8 chapter 19.10: “Where there is a change in the terms and conditions that materially affects the motorist then you must make these terms and conditions clear on your signage. Where such changes impose liability where none previously existed then you must consider a transition to allow regular visitors to the site to adjust and familiarise themselves with the changes. Best practice would be the installation of additional/ temporary signage at the entrance and throughout the site making it clear that new terms and conditions apply. This will ensure such that regular visitors who may be familiar with the previous terms become aware of the new ones.”

5.         Because of the above, the Defendant also believes that the Claimant fails Lord Denning’s ‘Red Hand Rule’; with a long history of the car park in question being free to use, a reasonable person could not expect one poorly visible entry sign to be sufficient to alert previous users of the facility that there had been a significant change to the terms & conditions of use.

6.         The Defendant believes that the entrance signage at the car park in question does not comply with BPA CoP v8 Appendix B in relation to entry signs “The sign should be placed so that it is readable by drivers without their needing to look away from the road ahead.”

7.         Pertaining to the signage within the car park displaying ther terms & conditions of parking, the Defendant believes that the Claimant has not complied with BPA Cop V8 Chapter 19.3 relating to specific parking terms signage “You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle.” The Defendant believes that signs emplaced solely around the perimeter do not satisfy the requirement of ‘throughout the site’, as a driver parking in one bays in the centre of the car park cannot read the signs positioned around the perimeter from their parking space.

8.         The Defendant believes that the Claimant has failed to satisfy BPA CoP v8 Chapter 19.3 in relation to the visibility of the signs in the car park displaying the terms & conditions of parking; “Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.”

9.         Unlike the famous ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis, where the text “Failure to comply with the terms & conditions will result in a Parking Charge of: £85” was displayed prominently in large, bold font on the signage within the car park, the consequences of failure to pay for parking as well as the parking charge fee of £100 were buried in the ‘small print’ of the Claimant’s signage, displayed in particularly small font. The Defendant believes that Claimant’s signage is notably different from the highly prominent & remarkable signage displayed in the Beavis case, and that the Claimant has once again failed to satisfy Lord Denning’s ‘Red Hand Rule’ by displaying what is a disproportionately high & unreasonable parking charge only within the small print of its signage.

10.          After receiving continued intimidating communications from the Complainant & third party ‘debt collectors’ acting on the Claimant’s behalf, the Defendant contacted the land owner (The Whitworth Centre), where he spoke to Jason Hedley, an employee of the facility, who informed him that there had originally been much more prominent signage in place in the car park, however the planning department of the local council instructed that it should be removed/altered.

11.       The Defendant submits that due to the Claimant’s non-compliance with the BPA CoP v8, and their failings to satisfy Lord Denning’s ‘Red Hand Rule’ as outlined above, that he was not presented with fair opportunity to enter into a contract with the Claimant as he did not see the terms and conditions of parking within the car park in question.