County claim VCS

135

Replies

  • edited 23 November 2021 at 3:28PM
    KeithPKeithP Forumite
    28.3K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited 23 November 2021 at 3:28PM
    bitbibit said:
    Hi again, I have received documents from court about hearing and I have been asked to provide the documentation to court and claimant by 29th Nov.
    It must be annoying that the Court have only given you six days notice to compile a Witness Statement and gather evidence.

    But you've known for several months that this was coming and are now very nearly ready for a hearing.
  • edited 23 November 2021 at 10:21PM
    Coupon-madCoupon-mad
    101.5K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    ✭✭✭✭✭✭
    edited 23 November 2021 at 10:21PM
    They send a page of their logs where my car registration is not recorded. In SAR they send me both documents where one of the registration number was partially resembles to mine but they have not included that number in the documents sent to court.
    They've done it again?!  SERIOUS stuff. 

    Search the forum for Excel v Ambler and you MUST MUST MUST put in evidence that entire court transcript plus the Appeal Judge's refusal to allow them to appeal.

    Also look at the signs.  ALL OF THEM in the SAR and the court 'evidence'. Do any have Excel instead of VCS as that is a problem with that car park?  


    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
    CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
    Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
  • edited 24 November 2021 at 8:07PM
    bitbibitbitbibit Forumite
    26 Posts
    10 Posts Name Dropper First Anniversary
    edited 24 November 2021 at 8:07PM
    They send a page of their logs where my car registration is not recorded. In SAR they send me both documents where one of the registration number was partially resembles to mine but they have not included that number in the documents sent to court.
    They've done it again?!  SERIOUS stuff. 

    Search the forum for Excel v Ambler and you MUST MUST MUST put in evidence that entire court transcript plus the Appeal Judge's refusal to allow them to appeal.

    Also look at the signs.  ALL OF THEM in the SAR and the court 'evidence'. Do any have Excel instead of VCS as that is a problem with that car park?  


    Thank you guys for your response, I am looking into Excel v Ambler thread. The signs in court Evidence are smaller and the writing which states the name of company is illegible. They have attached A4 page of one sign-board which is not photograph, instead it's seems actual design/drawing [with sharp corners while the one on ground has round corners] which states 'you are entering into a contract with Vehicle Control Service Ltd'. I suspect this design might have changed original sign board may not have VCS name that's why the photo they sent is half of A4 page to make the writing illegible. As this car park is no more present so it is not possible to get the actual sign-board images.
    But they have attached Leaseholder statement (see attachment) which summarises that the Land is leased to Excel Parking Services Ltd (The Lawful Occupier). The Lawful occupier contracted Vehicle Control Service to undertake the parking management activities. This make me think it is not lawful agreement with VCS (as management company) and driver/keeper.
    SAR didn't have any picture of sign, it only has photo of vehicle entrance and exit along with photos of PCN and NTK which I don't remember if they serve on time. It also have log of 121 obfuscated registration numbers, one of which has 3 out of 4 visible letters matching the vehicle registration. While the page attached in Evidence contains only 32 entries which doesn't contains partially matching entry. 

  • edited 24 November 2021 at 8:48PM
    Coupon-madCoupon-mad
    101.5K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    ✭✭✭✭✭✭
    edited 24 November 2021 at 8:48PM
    You will find the actual court transcripts for Excel b Ambler on this forum, both from the first hearing and the appeal Judge's refusal to allow appeal, where he agreed that it seemed Excel had altered the machine logs between appeal and court evidence.

    You MUST have both transcripts in your evidence and explain the similarity.  Pretty sure they were both posted in a thread all about it by @Lamilad, who acted as lay representative.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
    CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
    Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
  • edited 25 November 2021 at 7:40PM
    bitbibitbitbibit Forumite
    26 Posts
    10 Posts Name Dropper First Anniversary
    edited 25 November 2021 at 7:40PM
    Hi Guys,
    I have prepared my Witness Statement, I removed names and changed the page numbers to publish it here. Please advise the areas of improvements, thanks.


    In the county court at *****

     

    Claim No. ******

     

    VEHICLE CONTROL SERVICES LIMITED

    (Claimant)

    V

    *********

    (Defendant)

    ______________________________

    Witness Statement of The Defendant

    ______________________________

     

    I, ******, is the Defendant against whom this claim is being made. The facts below are true to the best of my belief and my account has been prepared based upon my knowledge.

    1- The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that a contract was entered into - by conduct or otherwise - whereby it was ‘agreed’ to pay a ‘parking charge’ and it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as managers from Leaseholder’s Witness Statement, which states lease agreement between Excel Parking Services and Landowner not the Claimant) has standing to sue, nor to form contracts in their own name at the location. Even the photographs of the signs in the Defendant’s Witness Statements at pages 123 and 234 don’t show it clearly that the agreement is between Excel Parking Services and page 567 is design or drawing of sign board with sharp 90-degree edges while the signs-boards in pictures had rounded edges. The Claimant may have purposely added irrelevant car park images and printing two images per page to obscure the smaller writings on signs. This parking is closed few years ago, so the Defendant is not able to verify the veracity of statement written on signs.

    2.  The Defendant reinstate that Defendant denies parking the vehicle in question on the Albert Car Parking, a property leased to Excel Parking Service, without purchasing and displaying a valid ticket from ticketing machine on given date and breaching any contract with Claimant. The Defendant believe the Driver of vehicle in question at given time purchased a valid ticket from car park’s ticket-machine as per instructions displayed on machine and displayed the ticket on the dashboard of vehicle in question, clearly visible to everyone from windscreen. (Can I add this, when the witness is not available for hearing because of being abroad and I didn’t mentioned of witness as I was not aware of the car, but sharing the image provided in WS of Claimant I could confirm that ticket was purchased and displayed though there were issue with machine accepting coins and driver has to go to car to search for different coins to purchase the ticket [if I can I will re-phrase it ]). No charge notice complying to regulations was displayed on screen or served to Defendant for the alleged breach of the contract on Claimant property within time as per law.  The Defendant is unaware of the circumstances on an unremarkable date four years ago and the Claimant is put to strict proof of their allegations, including that they complied with the relevant law that would be the only way to hold a registered keeper liable.

    3- The Defendant believes the Witness Statement from Claimant’s representative is not accurate representation of alleged contravention as, ******, the Claimant’s representative has been employed by the company since October 2020 while the alleged contravention took place in April 2017, none of the statements provided in their witness statement can be of their own knowledge. He is not aware of the alleged offence, the location, the signage or the facts in this case. Under “Background” heading in paragraph 6 at page 8 of Claimant Witness Statement, it is stated that Claimant issued parking charge followed by many correspondences and Defendant declined which is incorrect, Defendant never acknowledged or declined because Defendant only came to know about Claimant upon reception of Letter Before Claim. 

    4- In addition to that it appears the Witness Statement is tweaking of a set template and copy paste job. E.g. at page 013, paragraph 432 of Witness Statement, the it is stated that the predominant purpose of Parking Charge is to deter motorists from misusing the Car Park and that the occupier’s objective was to provide the parking spaces for customers and for purpose unconnected with the customers’ business. While this car park is not related to any business directly dealing with customers instead it’s general car park as business. This also leads the Defendant to assume that even the Claimant is not confident about the veracity of the Claim and not prepared to put effort to provide accurate Witness Statement, and this Claim is a mere tool of generating easy extra income.

    5- The Defendant has solid ground to believe based upon the previous history of the Claimant, and the documents provided to Defendant as Witness Statement and response to Defendant’s Subject Access Request (SAR), that the Claimant is either hiding the truth, not telling the complete truth in this case, or tempering the evidence. In paragraph 124 at page 157 of Claimant Witness Statement, Claimant refer to the attached logs in MW2 for the non-payment. The Defendant believe The Claimant is misleading the honourable court here by not presenting the full log of all the machines. The attached log has only 32 entries while the log provided to the Defendant in response to SAR contains 121 entries. One of the entries down the list of logs provided in response to SAR contains 3 out of 4 visible letters of the vehicle under question. Which makes the Defendant think this entry is misrepresentation of registration of vehicle under question. The expiry time of all the entries in the logs are mid-night. The Claimant didn’t provide any proof that machines at the parking are guaranteed to be in full working conditions and no tempering is done with logs.

    6- In addition to paragraph above, the Defendant would like to mention that at least one case has been awarded against the Excel Parking Services (The Lawful Occupier of Parking where the Claimant is contracted as parking management). I would request the honourable court to refer to order passed by Skipton court (photograph of judgement at page .. ) refusing the appeal in the case Excel Parking Service Limited Vs Sarah Elizabeth Ambler.

    7- Furthermore, to the disputed Parking Charge for £100 the Claimant has added a sum of £60 that is disingenuously described as 'debt recovery costs’. The added £60 constitutes double recovery and the court is invited to find the quantum claimed is false and an abuse of process as was found by District Judge Claire Jackson (now HHJ Jackson, a Specialist Civil Circuit Judge) in Excel vs Wilkinson: G4QZ465V, a similar case in which £60 had been added to a parking charge, heard in July 2020, the Judge concluded that such claims are proceedings with 'an improper collateral purpose'. Leave to appeal was refused and that route was not pursued. After hearing this ‘test case’, which followed numerous Judges repeatedly disallowing the £60 sum and warning parking firms not to waste court time with such spurious claims, Judge Jackson at the Bradford County Court went into significant detail before concluding that parking operators (such as the Claimant in this case) are seeking to circumvent CPR 27.14 as well as breaching the Consumer Rights Act 2015. Others, like Judge Hickinbottom of the same court area, have since echoed Judge Jackson’s words and struck out dozens of cases. Judge Hickinbottom recently stated ''I find that striking out this claim is the only appropriate manner in which the disapproval of the court can be shown''. 

    8- As a litigant-in-person I have had to spend a considerable time researching the law online, processing and preparing my defence and this witness statement. I ask for my fixed witness costs.

     

    The Court is invited to dismiss the claim and to award my costs of dealing with this claim and attendance at the hearing, such as are allowable pursuant to CPR 27.14.

    Statement of Truth

     

    I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement 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.

     

     Signed                                                                                                          Date ** ******

     

     ------------------------
    I will add this image of order from Skipton court judge as reference to the end of page, https://www.dropbox.com/s/v1xdk8n8xdglddg/Ambler appeal Judgement p1.jpg?dl=0

    What is the maximum I can ask per hour in costing schedule, can I ask for my real per hour rate which may be higher than average?

  • Coupon-madCoupon-mad
    101.5K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    ✭✭✭✭✭✭
    That is not the transcript of the actual Ambler hearing, you need both. Not just that page, the entire hearing where the altered machine issue was investigated by a very angry Judge.

    6- In addition to paragraph above, the Defendant would like to mention that at least one case has been awarded against the Excel Parking Services (The Lawful Occupier of Parking where the Claimant is contracted as parking management). I would request the honourable court to refer to order passed by Skipton court (photograph of judgement at page .. ) refusing the appeal in the case Excel Parking Service Limited Vs Sarah Elizabeth Ambler.
    No, you need the whole transcript and to tell the Judge how similar that case was - read it!


    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
    CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
    Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
  • bitbibitbitbibit Forumite
    26 Posts
    10 Posts Name Dropper First Anniversary
    Thanks @Coupon-mad, I am working on it. Can you please also advise on bold text in paragraph 2 about witness. I didn't asked for another witness statement as I was not sure about the incident and the availability of witness even over the phone because of him being abroad.

    2.  The Defendant reinstate that Defendant denies parking the vehicle in question on the Albert Car Parking, a property leased to Excel Parking Service, without purchasing and displaying a valid ticket from ticketing machine on given date and breaching any contract with Claimant. The Defendant believe the Driver of vehicle in question at given time purchased a valid ticket from car park’s ticket-machine as per instructions displayed on machine and displayed the ticket on the dashboard of vehicle in question, clearly visible to everyone from windscreen. (Can I add this, when the witness is not available for hearing because of being abroad and I didn’t mentioned of witness as I was not aware of the car, but sharing the image provided in WS of Claimant I could confirm that ticket was purchased and displayed though there were issue with machine accepting coins and driver has to go to car to search for different coins to purchase the ticket [if I can I will re-phrase it ]). No charge notice complying to regulations was displayed on screen or served to Defendant for the alleged breach of the contract on Claimant property within time as per law.  The Defendant is unaware of the circumstances on an unremarkable date four years ago and the Claimant is put to strict proof of their allegations, including that they complied with the relevant law that would be the only way to hold a registered keeper liable.2.  The Defendant reinstate that Defendant denies parking the vehicle in question on the Albert Car Parking, a property leased to Excel Parking Service, without purchasing and displaying a valid ticket from ticketing machine on given date and breaching any contract with Claimant. The Defendant believe the Driver of vehicle in question at given time purchased a valid ticket from car park’s ticket-machine as per instructions displayed on machine and displayed the ticket on the dashboard of vehicle in question, clearly visible to everyone from windscreen. (Can I add this, when the witness is not available for hearing because of being abroad and I didn’t mentioned of witness as I was not aware of the car, but sharing the image provided in WS of Claimant I could confirm that ticket was purchased and displayed though there were issue with machine accepting coins and driver has to go to car to search for different coins to purchase the ticket [if I can I will re-phrase it ]). No charge notice complying to regulations was displayed on screen or served to Defendant for the alleged breach of the contract on Claimant property within time as per law.  The Defendant is unaware of the circumstances on an unremarkable date four years ago and the Claimant is put to strict proof of their allegations, including that they complied with the relevant law that would be the only way to hold a registered keeper liable.
  • edited 26 November 2021 at 11:56AM
    bitbibitbitbibit Forumite
    26 Posts
    10 Posts Name Dropper First Anniversary
    edited 26 November 2021 at 11:56AM
    Here is the updated version including the transcript of case and both images of the order, please refer to updated Paragraph 6 of my WS. Because of length of body I have to remove first few paragraphs of my WS.


    In the county court at *****

     

    Claim No. ******

     

    VEHICLE CONTROL SERVICES LIMITED

    (Claimant)

    V

    *********

    (Defendant)

    ______________________________

    Witness Statement of The Defendant

    ______________________________

     

    5- The Defendant has solid ground to believe based upon the previous history of the Claimant, and the documents provided to Defendant as Witness Statement and response to Defendant’s Subject Access Request (SAR), that the Claimant is either hiding the truth, not telling the complete truth in this case, or tempering the evidence. In paragraph 124 at page 157 of Claimant Witness Statement, Claimant refer to the attached logs in MW2 for the non-payment. The Defendant believe The Claimant is misleading the honourable court here by not presenting the full log of all the machines. The attached log has only 32 entries while the log provided to the Defendant in response to SAR contains 121 entries. One of the entries down the list of logs provided in response to SAR contains 3 out of 4 visible letters of the vehicle under question. Which makes the Defendant think this entry is misrepresentation of registration of vehicle under question. The expiry time of all the entries in the logs are mid-night. The Claimant didn’t provide any proof that machines at the parking are guaranteed to be in full working conditions and no tempering is done with logs.

    6- In addition to paragraph above, the Defendant would like to mention that this case seems very similar to “Excel Parking Services Ltd vs Ambler. E1DP2061” which was decided against the Excel Parking Services (The Lawful Occupier of Parking where the Claimant is contracted as parking management). I would request the honourable court to refer to the transcript attached as Exhibit-01 at page 1234 and the order passed by Skipton court refusing the appeal as Exhibit-02 at page 5678.

    7- Furthermore, to the disputed Parking Charge for £100 the Claimant has added a sum of £60 that is disingenuously described as 'debt recovery costs’. The added £60 constitutes double recovery and the court is invited to find the quantum claimed is false and an abuse of process as was found by District Judge Claire Jackson (now HHJ Jackson, a Specialist Civil Circuit Judge) in Excel vs Wilkinson: G4QZ465V, a similar case in which £60 had been added to a parking charge, heard in July 2020, the Judge concluded that such claims are proceedings with 'an improper collateral purpose'. Leave to appeal was refused and that route was not pursued. After hearing this ‘test case’, which followed numerous Judges repeatedly disallowing the £60 sum and warning parking firms not to waste court time with such spurious claims, Judge Jackson at the Bradford County Court went into significant detail before concluding that parking operators (such as the Claimant in this case) are seeking to circumvent CPR 27.14 as well as breaching the Consumer Rights Act 2015. Others, like Judge Hickinbottom of the same court area, have since echoed Judge Jackson’s words and struck out dozens of cases. Judge Hickinbottom recently stated ''I find that striking out this claim is the only appropriate manner in which the disapproval of the court can be shown''. 

    8- As a litigant-in-person I have had to spend a considerable time researching the law online, processing and preparing my defence and this witness statement. I ask for my fixed witness costs.

     

    The Court is invited to dismiss the claim and to award my costs of dealing with this claim and attendance at the hearing, such as are allowable pursuant to CPR 27.14.

    Statement of Truth

     

    I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement 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.

     

     Signed                                                                                                          Date ** ******

     
     ---------------------- ---------------------- ---------------------- ---------------------- ---------------------- ----------------------


    Exhibit -1

     


    Excel Parking Services Ltd vs Ambler. E1DP2061


    17/07/18. Skipton County Court. Judge Skalskyj-Reynolds, presiding

    Claimant represented by Ms Peabody

    Lay Rep for the defendant – Lamilad


     
    Background:
    Ms Ambler was a member of Sports Direct Gym at Cavendish Retail Park (CRP), Keighley. Members are allowed 2 hours free parking provided they enter their full VRM into one the terminals in the gym entrance. She visited the gym on 5/5/16 and shortly after received a PCN for ‘failure to purchase a valid pay and display ticket’.


    Ms Ambler appealed stating that she had entered her full VRM (to get the free parking) but the terminals were prone to malfunction and members regularly received PCNs despite entering their VRM. She enclosed records from the gym confirming that she was there at the material time. The appeal was rejected, and the case eventually passed to BW Legal who commenced the usual debt collection process followed by an LBC and finally court papers in Jan ’18.


    Ms Ambler sought advice from Tony Taylor’s ‘fight’ facebook group and was eventually given Bargepole’s email address, who passed the case to me. The defence was filed shortly afterwards focussing on mainly on the fact it was Excel’s failing terminals that had caused the PCN to be issued and that the Defendant had in fact fully complied with the T&Cs. Also disputed were – incoherent PoC, CPR/ PaP failures, signage, contract and unrecoverable added costs.


    On allocation to Skipton court, an ‘unless order’ was issued by Judge Wright instructing the C to provide further and better particulars. These were provided along with an evidence pack containing photos and the full VRM logs from CRP on the material date. An amended defence was submitted and shortly afterwards a hearing date was scheduled.


    The Defendant’s Witness Statement gave more detail about her visit to the gym and the well-known issue of the malfunctioning terminals, as well as her attempts to engage with the C and the fact she’d given them sufficient reasons and evidence to cancel the charge. Also mentioned was the fact this was a distance contract, the regulations for which the Claimant’s signage did not comply with.


    Appended as evidence was a Witness Statement from the gym manager confirming the terminals were prone to malfunction and his own frustrations in having to deal with angry gym members and Excels stone-walling when he tried to resolve issues with them; a Witness Statement from another gym member in exactly the same position as Ms Ambler; the gym logs confirming Ms Ambler’s attendance, and Ms Ambler’s pre-action comms with Excel and Sports Direct.


    The Claimant’s Witness Statement was the usual dross from Rachel Brook at BWL. It was full of false statements, factual errors, spelling mistakes and incorrect gender references. Appended as evidence were more photos, all previous documentation, the contract with the landowner and another copy of the VRM logs. It was immediately apparent that there was an issue with the VRM logs insofar as they did not match the previous copy sent with the further PoC. The Witness Statement copy had over 40 VRMs removed that were in the first copy. I took the view that the C had deliberately falsified the logs in order to make them support their claim and this was stated in the Skeleton, filed a few days before the hearing along with the costs schedule.

     The skelly also mentioned the Claimant’s failure to comply with r27.9 regarding their non-attendance at court – notice was received 3 days before the hearing rather than 7 as required by the rule. Received at the same time was a second Witness Statement from Rachel Brook disputing points raised in the Defendant’s WITNESS STATEMENT– it said the WITNESS STATEMENT from the manager and the other member were irrelevant and inadmissible and that distance contract regulations did not apply.


     
    The Hearing


    We started on a rather nervy note, DJ SR saying that the distance contract regulations would need looking into very thoroughly and, as this had only been raised at WITNESS STATEMENT stage, there might not be enough time. She said if she found for the Claimant based on the other evidence, she would reserve judgement until further submissions on ‘CIC-CAR’ (as she called it) could be made. Whereas, if she found for the Defendant the claim would be dismissed outright.


    Keen to get on SR didn’t bother asking Ms P to state the Claimant’s case; she summed it up herself and asked me for a response which was the Defendant had done everything right, the terminal had failed to register her VRM and the PCN was issued incorrectly. Asked if I had any proof of this, I replied that it was impossible for any gym members to prove they had entered their VRM as the terminal doesn’t issue a receipt or any form of tangible confirmation. I went on that the defence would prove on the BoP that the machine failed to register the Ds VRM based on, inter alia, the 2 additional WS’s and comms with SD discussing the terminal’s frequent and well-known failings.


    SR then wanted to look at the logs to confirm the Defendant’s VRM wasn’t there. She commented ‘I believe, Mr L, that you say there is something wrong with these logs’. I explained the mismatch between the 2 copies and the missing VRMs. At first, she was very confused and, believing there must be a rational explanation, she began bombarding Ms P with questions about the logs, looking for some clarity. Ms P couldn’t answer and eventually mumbled something about the Claimant ‘truncating’ the logs to avoid unnecessary printing/ wasted paper. I gasped at this response. The bombardment continued with SR becoming increasingly frustrated and Ms P sinking further into her seat. This went on for several minutes until SR, by now very angry, reached the conclusion that the logs were not reliable, she was ‘displeased’ that evidence appeared to have been ‘messed with’ and if she couldn’t trust this evidence how could she trust anything from the Claimant.


    SR noted that the missing entries were all before the Ds entry time (9.25am) so she flicked through the logs to see if there was a record of the Ds VRM on either copy or something similar (perhaps a wrong digit was entered). Here she spotted that 4 VRM entries that were on the first copy had been removed from the second, between 9.24 and 9.31. She was fuming, she launched a furious attack on Excel about the fact the evidence had been ‘altered’. She said she was already ‘deeply concerned’ that earlier entries were missing but to see that entries at the ‘material time had been removed was absolutely shocking and very troubling. Her voice was strained, she was practically shouting. She was saying that ‘messing with material evidence’ was completely unacceptable and something that the C ‘must not do’… They cannot and must not alter evidence to suit their case. SR said she was ‘disturbed’ by this; it was ‘absolutely inexcusable’.

    This tirade went on a while I missed parts of it as I was looking at the floor trying hard to hide my obvious grin, but it was absolutely brutal, I have never seen a judge so angry and appalled. That said I felt sorry for Ms P who was visibly shaking and tapping her foot at the end – SR did apologise to her saying ‘I appreciate you are a solicitor’s agent and none of this is your fault’ SR ended her rant by saying ‘this claim is obviously dismissed and I will award costs for the Claimant’s clear unreasonable behaviour, I do not feel I need to give a full judgement unless one is requested’.


    Ms P, from almost underneath the desk squeaked that she ‘would need a full judgement’. SR was just starting to calm down but got fully worked up again as she revisited the details in her judgement. Now on to costs I referred SR to the Defendant’s schedule which was bold but genuine. Ordinary costs were awarded for loss of a day’s leave, travel and parking. 40 hours LiP costs were awarded under r27.14(2)(g) (after breaking the costs down for the judge). A further £120 was awarded ‘in principal’, pending further submissions in the next 14 days. £15 for stationary, printing and copying was refused. Total costs £989 (£120 reserved) £869 to be paid to the Defendant within 21 days.


    Thankfully there was a ‘anything else’ at the end so I grabbed it to refer SR to paras 9 and 10 of the skelly which quoted r32.14 in relation the apparent falsified evidence and the Defendant’s view that it crossed the threshold of Contempt of Court. SR agreed that it could be contempt and she would send a letter along with the case documents to a civil judge who would make a decision.



    Exhibit -2

    It contains following two images of order
    https://www.dropbox.com/s/03gm42bniu0e4gz/img003.jpg?dl=0
    https://www.dropbox.com/s/xkg9laxjeyb06za/img004.jpg?dl=0

     ---------------------- ---------------------- ---------------------- ---------------------- ---------------------- ----------------------


    Should I add the logs sent to me as Exhibit 3, it's an excel sheet, just copy pasting here should be OK if I need to send them?
    What is the maximum I can ask per hour in costing schedule, can I ask for my real per hour rate which may be higher than average?

  • Le_KirkLe_Kirk Forumite
    16.6K Posts
    Eighth Anniversary 10,000 Posts Photogenic Name Dropper
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    5- The Defendant has solid grounds to believe based upon the previous history of the Claimant, and the documents provided to Defendant as Witness Statement and response to Defendant’s Subject Access Request (SAR), that the Claimant is either hiding the truth, not telling the complete truth in this case, or tempering tampering with the evidence. In paragraph 124 at page 157 of Claimant Witness Statement, Claimant refer to the attached logs in MW2 for the non-payment. The Defendant believes that the Claimant is misleading the honourable court here by not presenting the full log of all the machines. The attached log has only 32 entries while the log provided to the Defendant in response to the SAR contains 121 entries. One of the entries down the list of logs provided in response to SAR contains 3 out of 4 visible letters of the vehicle under in question, . Which  which makes the Defendant think this entry is misrepresentation of registration of vehicle under in question. The expiry time of all the entries in the logs are midnight. The Claimant didn’t provide any proof that machines at the parking are guaranteed to be in full working conditions and no tempering tampering is done with logs.
    Few suggestions above.
  • edited 27 November 2021 at 2:18AM
    Coupon-madCoupon-mad
    101.5K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    ✭✭✭✭✭✭
    edited 27 November 2021 at 2:18AM
    That is NOT the court transcript.

    That is a forum hearsay post by the lay rep.  Later in his thread he provides both transcripts, one from the case hearing and one later on, from the circuit Judge refusing an appeal and confirming the Judge was right that the logs were altered. You don't provide a court with a forum thread, you need the court transcripts x 2 that lamilad posted in that thread about the case.  Read it all.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
    CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
    Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
Sign In or Register to comment.
Latest MSE News and Guides