BW Legal County court claim

CaH27

Sequence of events:

 

1.     On 12/02/2016 it was my partners birthday and we had been out shopping. On our way back my partner received a phone call from her grandfather who was in a public house. We decided to quickly visit him.

2.     I do not visit this car park often. When parking my vehicle I noticed a sign located on the premises of the public house we was visiting, as stated on the PCN it was February evening we arrived, it was dark and the sign was unlit making it hard to read. It stated “customer parking only” in bold, it didn’t however state where you had to be a customer. As the sign was mounted onto the wall of the premises I was visiting, I believed this to be for their customers use.

3.     After leaving to return to the car I noticed the PCN. On observing the car park for more signs I noticed a sign located up a lamppost on exiting the car park, not visible when entering as it facing the wrong way. This sign was near to impossible to read because of the height it was placed and the fact it was too unlit. <exhibit 1>

 

Defence:

 

4.     If the signs had indicated where I had to be a customer then I would not have used the car park and looked for an alternative car park. On returning to the car park for gathering evidence I have noticed this has now been amended to include the shopping premises you have to be a customer to park. This to me highlights the Claimants acceptance by action that their signage at the time was wholly inadequate. <exhibit 2><exhibit 3>

5.     The PCN was issued past 10pm with all but one shops closed. Therefore the claimant has not been impacted financially or operationally by their mistake not to include the premises in which you have to be a customer.

6.     In reference to the claimant alleging that the signs have been included in the sight plan in an exhibit, none of these have been included in the patrol officers accounts in the vehicle location plan, in which they only stated 2 signs. I therefore believe these to be an updated version of the signs sight plan which bears no relevance to 2016.

This is what I have so far. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

I will also include the beavis case and abuse of process.

Am I on the right lines?

CaH27

Good evening,

has anybody had chance to read through my draft?

I would like to send it off asap as mentioned by others, but would like to know it is substantial as I haven’t done this before.

I am getting anxious now.

thank you for your help everyone.

Le_Kirk

Have you seen the template defence?  This is the way to go and base your defence on it's style and format, adjusting only paragraphs 2 & 3.  Your defence reads more like a witness statement.

CaH27

Thanks Le_Kirk for your reply.

I am up to WS stage, with a court date mid March.

go-on-then

Havn't read through all your thread but 2 good examples of WS and evidence exhibits that are usually suggested are @jryhs and  @Nosy.

Dont forget to throw in something about the new Code of Practice ?! 

Le_Kirk

CaH27 said:

Thanks Le_Kirk for your reply.
I am up to WS stage, with a court date mid March.

Sorry, it is because you wrote Defence in your post, I assumed it was a ..... well ...... defence.  As @go-on-then has written, check out the most recent examples of witness statements for style and format.  Your witness statement must back up and support your defence.

CaH27

That’s what I done, I uploaded for critique.

I’ve changed the heading ‘defence’ to ‘in the alternative’ as recommended earlier, but the points remain the same following the WS template.

I’m half thinking weather to pay the thing and save the stress!

Le_Kirk

CaH27 said:

1.     On 12/02/2016 it was my partners birthday and we had been out shopping. On our way back my partner received a phone call from her grandfather who was in a public house. We decided to quickly visit him.

2.     I do not visit this car park often. When parking my vehicle in the car park, I noticed a sign located on the premises of the public house we was were visiting, as stated on the PCN it was a February evening we arrived, it was dark and the sign was were unlit, making it hard to read. It stated “customer parking only” in bold, it didn’t however state where you had to be a customer. As the sign was mounted onto the wall of the premises I was visiting, I believed this to be for their customers use.

3.     After leaving to return to the car I noticed the PCN. On observing searching the car park for more signs I noticed a sign located up a lamppost on exiting the car park, not visible when entering as it facing the wrong way. This sign was near to impossible to read because of the height it was placed and the fact it was too unlit. <exhibit 1>

 4.     If the signs had indicated where I had to be a customer or had indicated not for use by customers of [PUB] then I would not have used the that car park and but instead looked for an alternative. car park. On returning to the car park later for research purposes for gathering evidence I have noticed this that the sign has now been amended to include the shopping premises of which you have to be a customer to park. This to me highlights the Claimant's acceptance by action that their signage at the time was wholly inadequate. <exhibit 2><exhibit 3>

5.     The PCN was issued past 10pm with all but one shops closed. Therefore the claimant has not been impacted financially or operationally by their mistake not to include the premises in which you have to be a customer.

6.     In reference to the claimant alleging that the signs have been included in the sight site plan in an exhibit, none of these have been included in the patrol officer's accounts in the vehicle location plan, in which they only stated 2 signs. I therefore believe these to be an updated version of the signs sight site plan which bears no relevance to 2016.

I will also include the beavis case and abuse of process.

Am I on the right lines

Try these amendments.  I would remove #5 completely as it is close to being "no financial loss" and that is not a point any more.  We don't call it Abuse of Process any more; it is "double recovery".

CaH27

Thank you Le_Kirk.

In reference to the incorrect date in the particular of claim. CPR17.1(2) If his statement of case has been served, a party may amend it only –

(a) with the written consent of all the other parties; or

(b) with the permission of the court.

Would I be giving consent if I defend my case of the correct date?

Any idea @Johnersh?

Coupon-mad

CaH27 said:

Thank you Le_Kirk.

In reference to the incorrect date in the particular of claim. CPR17.1(2) If his statement of case has been served, a party may amend it only –

(a) with the written consent of all the other parties; or

(b) with the permission of the court.

Would I be giving consent if I defend my case of the correct date?

Any idea @Johnersh?

I presume you put in your WS by now?

Only I've created some new wording about the new Code of practice that you were advised to include:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/79031299/#Comment_79031299

That's written for defences but can be adapted for witness statements.  Hopefully you looked up the new Code when advised about it above, and know that the £60 or £70 per PCN 'add-on costs' for debt recovery are banned by the Government?

You must use that as part of your crib sheet for the hearing.