DCBLegal/Excel Parking - Hearing Date June 2023

WoodyTheCowboy

I think my WS is in a good place thanks to all your inputs. 

I'll get my bundle submitted and see if they blink.

1505grandad

I may be misunderstanding but you state in para 47 that:-
"..I remind the court that the Claimants representative did not have reasonable cause to issue the PCN (on my vehicles windscreen)...."

as you state in your closed thread:-

"All four PCN/NTKs were received within 2 days of each other for alleged parking contraventions taking place on separate days (1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th April). These were posted to the keeper and no windscreen ticket was issued."

WoodyTheCowboy

1505grandad said:

I may be misunderstanding but you state in para 47 that:-
"..I remind the court that the Claimants representative did not have reasonable cause to issue the PCN (on my vehicles windscreen)...."

as you state in your closed thread:-

"All four PCN/NTKs were received within 2 days of each other for alleged parking contraventions taking place on separate days (1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th April). These were posted to the keeper and no windscreen ticket was issued."

Great spot. That's poor proof reading on my part where I've adapted the recommended WS bundle, hold my hands up to that one. I'll go through it all in detail to look for any further errors.

Coupon-mad

Brilliant spot!

WoodyTheCowboy

Thorough proof read done and all appears to be in order.

I'll get these filed with the Court and Claimants legal. Thank you everyone.

WoodyTheCowboy

Coupon-mad said:

In paragraph 4, remove the sentence starting "This sign states" (eek no!) and don't show any photo of readable signs.

I was rereading all the points brought up to make sure I'd covered them in my WS. 

@Coupon-mad are you saying here I should remove all photos with readable signs? Or only the photos that were relating to Para 4?

There are photos included where the sign is readable, but this is because I took it on foot when I was gathering evidence. In hindsight, the view from the car would have been better but can't turn back the clock now! 

I've included them as part of my argument that all signs indicate Pay and Display payment methods. Further to this, Excel have only provided evidence (stock images) which are not the signs that were there at the time and are also contradictory to each other. 

Apologies if this is obvious, I just want to make absolutely sure. Cheers.

Coupon-mad

If they have ONLY attached stock images I wouldn't provide readable pics of signs that are actually there now...unless you have one or two that prove their stock images wrong?  Different wording?

I certainly would not show one of the approach ramp. At all!

WoodyTheCowboy

Approach ramp pictures are gone completely, took care of those with your amended wording from earlier.

Things are slightly interesting when it comes to their pictures. When I did the SAR, they sent me a bundle of pictures (only stock images). None of them were the actual signs at the time, perhaps from a later date, but I haven't been there for a long, long time for obvious reasons. 

In the bundle they did provide (4 images in total), three of them are all referencing Pay and Display, the use of PDT machines and showing a ticket. In fact, one looks like it's supposed to be from the PDT machine itself. They're slightly different in layout to what was there at the alleged event. However, in their WS they have not provided any of the aforementioned signs.

The last image is of a sign that says the car park is Pay by Phone only and all T&Cs relate solely to paying by phone! This is the only one that has been included in Excel's WS. 

My images prove their stock images wrong in that the signage was in no way related to Pay by Phone. But, is that a strong enough argument to include them? 

Coupon-mad

Oh, gotcha!

So in their SAR reply (that you are calling a bundle but it's not actually been served as part of the case for court) they included signs that they now appear to gave decided they don't want to show the Judge?

Haha!

In that case, is there a way you can attach their whole SAR reply as one compressed PDF exhibit (so it's not huge) and refer to it sarcastically in your WS? Make it clear that what they have declared (under a statement of truth) to the court appears to be untrue and they are hoist by their own petard, revealed by the 'alternative facts' signs they released as part of a SAR response (see exhibit xx10 - or whatever number it will be).

WoodyTheCowboy

I most certainly can and will do that! 

With regards to my own images of the signage, do you think they're worth including as a counter or would they impede me?

They are Exhibits 05 & 06 in my WS. Excel's images they provided me are Exhibit 08. I refer to them in Paras 8,9 and 10.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ympngqtzify0m3n/Redacted Witness Statement-GW-J9KF4D3Z.pdf?dl=0