Assistance reviewing my defence to submit next week

zigg123

Hi I have struggled a bit with my witness statement but now have a working draft. Am I able to upload it so someone can give me a few pointers before I submit tomorrow? Only seems to allow picture uploads and url? Should I put it in dropbox and paste URL?

KeithP

zigg123 said:

 Should I put it in dropbox and paste URL?

That's a good option. Remember to hide all you personal details first of course.

zigg123

Please could someone review the wintess statement for me when you have time. It is in docx format:

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/m5jjf7hb6du5edqkpn2cv/Excel-Parking-Defendant-Witness-Statement_redacted-personal-info.docx?dl=0&rlkey=pruaf6xqh8otd715xjmf31at3

I have also scanned Excel parking witness statement and saved relevant bits in case relevant:

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/a5w2l8zyqblk8vucj75hc/Excel-parking-witness-statement_excerpt-to-review-their-case.docx?dl=0&rlkey=sit038frib7y5vxzmhptydlzt

Any help appreciated all the Best

zigg123

KeithP said:

zigg123 said:

 Should I put it in dropbox and paste URL?

That's a good option. Remember to hide all you personal details first of course.

I have removed my details and they are in dropbox thanks

zigg123

zigg123 said:

KeithP said:

zigg123 said:

 Should I put it in dropbox and paste URL?

That's a good option. Remember to hide all you personal details first of course.

I have removed my details and they are in dropbox thanks

For my witness statement I used a lot out of my defence and to be honest I have not spent enough time looking at the cases other than Beavis vs Parkingeye. I am particularly confused about the costs claimed by Excel and how to succinctly challenge, and also if what they have supplied is ok wrt landowner

Coupon-mad

OK:

They have not attempted to use the POFA. They are silent about that and instead mention the Nick Jennings' case in paras 19 - 21 but they have failed to append the transcript of it, I assume?

The only problems Excel have with trying to argue that your wife was acting as your agent is firstly that the argument is stupid and wrong in law (and Nick Jennings did not attend or contest that hearing so no wonder the Judge was led up the garden path by the legal rep) but also there is the teeny weeny problem that Excel have already lost that exact argument on Appeal!  It was in a case where (like yours) the Defendant was not the driver and Excel failed to comply with the POFA Schedule 4 and tried arguing law of agency.

An Appeal Judge set out the true position and that was in Excel v Smith, for which there is a transcript that you MUST read and append to this WS.  It's hosted on the Parking Prankster's case law pages.  Google, go read it and grab it!

Remove Exhibit 11 (entrance LHS) as that image shows slightly different terms give rise to a PCN.  You do not want to show that version!

Now look at what the similar signs actually say gives rise to £100 PCN...do you spot the fatal omission I saw?  Think about what the signs say leads to a PCN.  No breach from 'failure to validate' then?  You need to point that out in your WS as it's a potential slam dunk winning point.

Now look again at all those entries on their cobbled-together log, that say 'voucher'.  Hmmm...are they meant to be validations?  But they can't be, because several of those entries inexplicably only allow the cars to have ONE minute of parking.  Others show odd times, like half an hour and an hour.  Wait!  That makes no sense.  NONE of the cars on that list have been validated for three hours, as the offer in the signs promises.  Therefore no-one used the Aldi keypad that day...or if failed, or this list is unreliable evidence.

Now search the forum for Excel v Ambler and read Lamilad's account of that case, where Excel were caught out by a Judge and a reviewing Appeal Judge.  Guess what for?  Apparently editing and changing a machine log.  Go get that Appeal Order where the Circuit Judge refused an appeal as there was sufficient evidence of tampering to render these word doc 'logs' as utterly lacking in probative value.

And remove 'offence/offense' and 'penalty', neither of which are right.  Change them.

Show is the NTK please (first PCN letter) so we can read the wording and all dates because they have very obviously not attempted to use the POFA and i stead are hoping you don't know about Excel v Smith or that thd law if agency never applies between husband and wife!

Remove the stuff about Semark-Jullien as you seem to have copied that from an old WS.

Instead use my wording I posted last night about the PAP and how it must not be used to run up excessive costs.  Read my posts from last night, go grab the new wording I suggested.  

Then let's see the next draft.

KeithP

Your full name and address and PCN reference number are clearly visible on that first image.

Your PCN Reference Number and the vehicle's VRM are clearly visible on the second image.

zigg123

Please see link to NTK

https://www.dropbox.com/s/vdyra4t0mw41gtd/PCN notice & NTK.pdf?dl=0

KeithP

I haven't read back through your thread, but you don't appear to be using the argument that the Claimant hasn't complied with POFA sufficiently to transfer any driver's liability to the keeper.

You really should, because the dates alone on that NTK are not good enough to transfer that liability.

The NTK has an Issue Date of 18/06/20 and states a 'Contravention Date' of 27/05/20.

A difference of twenty-three days. 

KeithP

Your PCN Reference Number is still clearly visible on the second image.

The parking companies trawl this forum just waiting for people to trip themselves up and by including that information in your thread you have uniquely identified your parking incident.

This means that any 'indiscretion' made in this thread can be directly attributed to your particular parking event.