County Court Claim Form

Potts_123

does a witness statement need to be laid out the same as the defence, with numbered paragraphs etc or can it just be typed up as a letter?

Redx

Potts_123 said:

does a witness statement need to be laid out the same as the defence, with numbered paragraphs etc or can it just be typed up as a letter?

See the examples by @jrhys and @nosy ( the best examples we have here )

It is a document , also listing numbered exhibits

Potts_123

Redx said:

Potts_123 said:

does a witness statement need to be laid out the same as the defence, with numbered paragraphs etc or can it just be typed up as a letter?

See the examples by @jrhys and @nosy ( the best examples we have here )

It is a document , also listing numbered exhibits

great, thank you.

even though i am arguing that i was not driving the vehicle, i wasn't even there in fact, do i still include the section about the beavis case? also the abuse of process and redacted landowner contract?

Im going to be honest, none of this is making sense to me 

Redx

Potts_123 said:

Redx said:

Potts_123 said:

does a witness statement need to be laid out the same as the defence, with numbered paragraphs etc or can it just be typed up as a letter?

See the examples by @jrhys and @nosy ( the best examples we have here )

It is a document , also listing numbered exhibits

great, thank you.

even though i am arguing that i was not driving the vehicle, i wasn't even there in fact, do i still include the section about the beavis case? also the abuse of process and redacted landowner contract?

Im going to be honest, none of this is making sense to me 

Yes , include whatever you can that is relevant , especially if it backs up your case or rubbishes their POC or WS

Start with

I was definitely not the driver on the day in question. Due to having to try and piece together the facts of the case , I have realised that it was a family member who had the vehicle at the time , not me

Blah blah , or something similar

If you can recall where you were , especially if it was elsewhere , say so

Potts_123

i am probably making it seem a lot more complicated than it is. 
i was living between addresses at the time, due to working away and i genuinely don't remember ever seeing the NTK and some other correspondence that was sent to my parents address. 
should i say this, or will it do me no favours as i should have the car registered to the address at which i am living

Redx

Potts_123 said:

i am probably making it seem a lot more complicated than it is. 
i was living between addresses at the time, due to working away and i genuinely don't remember ever seeing the NTK and some other correspondence that was sent to my parents address. 
should i say this, or will it do me no favours as i should have the car registered to the address at which i am living

You can add it as background information , but POFA is your strongest suit , followed by no landowner authority and poor signage etc , plus double recovery if they have added spurious charges like £60 or £70

Potts_123

Redx said:

Potts_123 said:

i am probably making it seem a lot more complicated than it is. 
i was living between addresses at the time, due to working away and i genuinely don't remember ever seeing the NTK and some other correspondence that was sent to my parents address. 
should i say this, or will it do me no favours as i should have the car registered to the address at which i am living

You can add it as background information , but POFA is your strongest suit , followed by no landowner authority and poor signage etc , plus double recovery if they have added spurious charges like £60 or £70

thank you, you have been a great help.

one last question from me.....how do i know that the below is true for my particular claimant, or is this relevant to all PPC's?

Redacted Landowner Contract

15. The Claimant has appended a redacted ‘Customer License Agreement’ which has little or no probative value and which offends against the rules of evidence. The ‘Client’ signatory of the ‘Agreement’ could be anyone, even a stranger to the land, and the Claimant provides no evidence that the ‘Client’ is the landowner.

16. It is also clear that the document has not been signed by two Directors, nor by one Director in the presence of attesting witnesses, and as such cannot – according to the Companies Act – be considered a validly executed contract. The network of contracts are key in these cases, since the parking charges are argued to be contractual and the authority to sue visitors must flow from the landowner, not an agent.

Redx

If you are alleging it , it's for them to prove their case , or fail ! It's not necessary for you to prove it , but checking the signatures is just simply counting them on one hand , I saw one , not two ,CSO doesn't seem compliant to me ( but what do I know ? )

Fruitcake is an expert regarding contracts , especially redacted ones ! 😁😁👍👍

This is why copy and paste can be a bad thing , because you are signing it ( like small print in a contract )

It won't be the case in all contracts , but definitely bsome contracts with some companies , but not all companies

Coupon-mad

If they have sent you their WS you know whether the landowner contract is redacted or not.  You have it!

And of you have been using our forum as a resource properly (as we urge everyone to do) and haven't just dipped in/popped back occasionally to this little thread alone, you will know about the wider picture of the Government's announcement and be aware of yesterday's news about the new Code of Practice.

Obviously every Defendant needs to add in the fact that the Government has now completely banned 'debt recovery' added costs that were never incurred. I am surprised I keep having to point this out despite it being on the BBC news and us having four new threads about it yesterday!

Read bargepole's thread.   Law is not retrospective but it is a massive steer for the courts in existing cases. Use the ban.

Potts_123

Coupon-mad said:

If they have sent you their WS you know whether the landowner contract is redacted or not.  You have it!

And of you have been using our forum as a resource properly (as we urge everyone to do) and haven't just dipped in/popped back occasionally to this little thread alone, you will know about the wider picture of the Government's announcement and be aware of yesterday's news about the new Code of Practice.

Obviously every Defendant needs to add in the fact that the Government has now completely banned 'debt recovery' added costs that were never incurred. I am surprised I keep having to point this out despite it being on the BBC news and us having four new threads about it yesterday!

Read bargepole's thread.   Law is not retrospective but it is a massive steer for the courts in existing cases. Use the ban.

yep, i fully understand this, to be honest i have found it difficult to sit and try and take in all the information. 
As bad and as wrong as these companies are, i kind of wish i had just paid what they were asking for to be honest.

i now realise that i have submitted my WS in haste last night, as i had already missed the 14 day deadline, and have including things in it that dont even apply to my case. for example the redacted landowner contract. i have just looked through their witness statement and there is nothing on their contract that has been redacted. 
the other point regarding signatures still stands though. 
The fact i have added in stuff that isnt correct is clearly going to go massively against me and i dont expect to win this case now.

leaving everything last minute and rushing it all through was stupid on my behalf.

i have another one that i am awaiting a court date for and i will spend a hell of a lot more time researching and preparing for that one!