Vauxhall Street Plymouth, Car Park

Coupon-mad

No, a skeleton argument is a skeleton argument. It's mentioned in the newbies thread.

The hilarious thing is they usually refer to a host of authorities but fail to append ANY of the transcripts! Judges don't like that, and it means the cases mean nothing!

Which is not a mistake you will make, because you already know from the example WS to append the actual transcript of Excel v Wilkinson, for example.

Vlad_The_Inhaler

Coupon-mad said:

No, a skeleton argument is a skeleton argument. It's mentioned in the newbies thread.

The hilarious thing is they usually refer to a host of authorities but fail to append ANY of the transcripts! Judges don't like that, and it means the cases mean nothing!

Which is not a mistake you will make, because you already know from the example WS to append the actual transcript of Excel v Wilkinson, for example.

Noted Coupon_mad and thank you.

I can confirm they only reference cases and quote small excerpts.

Keep well.

Vlad

Vlad_The_Inhaler

Jenni_D said:

Of course it will - it's the latest thread to mention that search term.  
Other threads will also refer to the claimant's WS making the same statement, and some will include copies. You'll also find references to one judge saying (when the C raised this) ... "So what?"

The point is to show you that they almost always make this accusation, and almost always use templates themselves.  

Jenni_D thank you for your comment.

It was my poor attempt at humour with the added uninteded smily faceincorrect emojii.

Noted your comment on their accusations, amazes me that a paralegal does not see the irony of copying and pasting this repeatedly into their submission...perhaps they do not understand irony?

Keep well.

Vlad

Umkomaas

amazes me that a paralegal does not see the irony of copying and pasting this repeatedly into their submission...perhaps they do not understand irony?

Do you really think they have any idea what is spewing off their conveyor belts bearing their name?  This is spamming on an industrial scale. I suspect the paralegal will never have heard of you, or even read your name. Far too early in the process.

Vlad_The_Inhaler

Good evening fello Forum dwellers,

What follows is a very, very, VERY rough draft. I have posted it to give you kind and knowledgable folks time to kick it around and tell me where I have gone awry. I will add in the images and index later.

So for now please be gentle as I have been dealing with two power cuts today. Things have been "interesting" regards electrical power here in general today. Perhaps those that watch over me were trying to provide me respite from the woes of producing this.

My deadline for submission is 1600 Hours tomorrow (Friday).

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.: xxxxxxxx

Between

PREMIER PARKING SOLUTIONS LIMITED

(Claimant)

- and -

xxxxx xxxxx

(Defendant)

 

WITNESS STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT

FOR COURT HEARING ON xx/xx/xxxx

  

 

1. I am Mr xxxxxx of xxxxxxxxxxx, and I am the defendant against whom this claim is made. The facts below are true to the best of my belief and my account has been prepared based upon my own knowledge.

2.  In my statement I shall refer to exhibits within the evidence supplied with this statement, referring to page and reference numbers where appropriate.  My defence is repeated and I will say as follows:

Sequence of events

3. The vehicle was parked in XXXXX carpark on xxxxxx and was parked at the times mentioned.

4. The vehicle has never to my knowledge been parked in this car park before this date and the person paying had no previous knowledge of using an ANPR car park or associated VRM machines especially.

5. The machine is not easy to use, especially one unfamiliar with its use. I draw your attention to the machine itself, it stands 14 Bricks high (less than 1 metre or 39”) with its LCD display at the 11/12 brick interface (approximately 90cm or 35 Inches) this is crotch level for a tall person. This LCD display in sunlight is almost impossible to read. See claimants zoomed in photograph.

6. Note the unclear diagrams on the machine, the payment diagram clearly shows money first as one would do with any standard parking meter, not the VRM as stated in the Claiments WS. As the Claimants WS states you have two opportunities to enter the VRM, you then pay.

7. The input keypad is a confusing array of buttons with symbols positioned for a tall person, at thigh level to prevent easy operation with no clear indication on how to correct mistakes especially with such a poorly positioned display, which for a is at or below groin level. Add to this there is a bollard positioned right in front of the machine making it nigh impossible to bend to see the display. See claiments own image xx and xxx

8. Putting money first into a parking ticket machine is the standard way of operating a parking meter,  having paid first as per the diagram and either the machine being in error or failing to input the VRM in two attempts the ticket is issued without confirmation. Having paid the correct fee first and having no indication on the ticket or the car park signs that a VRM had to be on the ticket for it to be valid. Any reasonable person would assume that having paid and been issued a ticket, one had taken all reasonable steps to park with the landowners authority. One would think a sample picture/diagram of what should be on the ticket would be a simple matter with a warning that failure to have the correct information on the receipt would invalidate the ticket.

9. It is my position that this machine is designed to encourage errors with use and generate PCN’s, by it’s deliberate design features such as a lack of a standard interface, poor positioning of  the display and keyboard plus the difficult to read and understand keys. The payment diagram is from my point of view designed to lure the unwary into putting coins in first.

10. I contacted Flowbird Smart City UK Ltd, who are the manufacturers and support for the Flowbird Stradia machine in this car park. After phoning several times and an exchange of emails they did try to provide me with details but after the penultimate email there was a long delay and they then refused to provide me with a user manual and a list of error codes to enable me to verify, if indeed it was an error code or an input error. This was done in May 2022 and to this date no indication from BW Legal has been provided satisfying my observation. Flowbird did confirm it was their machine in this car park. In the email dated 9/5/2022 they did state and I quote “Thank you for the picture of the ticket. I have identified that the car park is run by Premier Parking and where the code RR is - it should have the number of the machine.” Draw from that what you will.

11. The Claiment stating that if a “if the defendant experienced difficulties with the payment machine on the contravention date then he could have contacted the claimant using the details shown on the signage…” This statement is not valid as having a receipt issued who would consider that it was invalid?

12. Receiving the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) from XXXXX parking, on my return home in January having been away on family matters. I opened a letter from PPS and another from BW Legal demanding £160. Which was for allegedly breaching the terms and conditions whilst my vehicle was parked on private land. This was my first sight of the Notice to Keeper.

13. The reason for issue of both the Notice To Keeper and the following letter from BW Legal was “No trace of Payment” I promptly responded by letter dated and sent 6th January 2022 to BW Legal sending a copy of the receipt for parking and pointing out that correct payment had been paid for the vehicle in question and it had left well before the expiry time. This was confirmed by the imagery they had sent. For me this should have closed the matter but instead they have kept on with their demands and threats of ever increasing costs.  

14. BW Legal sent a letter dated 10th January not mentioning my letter of the 6th January 2022. BW Legal acknowledged my letter on the 18th January 2022 still demanding £160 and dismissed my letter which had included a copy of the receipt for the time they were claiming. I also stated that I believed that an error code was in the place of the VRM. Their stance was pay £160 with no consideration for the proof of payment, this I found unreasonable and not honourable.

15. Note the receipt I produced with the "error code" appears on their transaction report received by me with their Witness Statement on the 1st September 2022, confirming the required fee was paid with the same code found upon the receipt produced, thus confirming payment at the correct time and location. This information has been kept from me until now and only produced the day before the deadline for submission of all Witness Statements. This information being withheld, especially after it confirmed my proof of payment was to ensure they could keep up with their harassment and threatening letters to place maximum pressure before a hearing.

16. As it states on the Transaction Report it was and I quote “Generated 0n (date less than two weeks ago)” It has no audit trail, who downloaded or made this or how it was generated. No indication or otherwise has been provided how this was created nor is it witnessed and signed by the producer as a true and honest copy of all data held for this carpark at this time. It fails to have an audit trail and cannot stand as proof of no issues with the machine.

17. Despite me sending a copy to them of this receipt matching their printout they are purely going for me regards breach of contract for lack of VRM. They have not suffered harm nor loss and may have actually profitted by the vehicle leaving the carpark before the exit time expired. They also did not submit the transaction report to me confirming they had indeed received payment matching this receipt.

18. I feel I need to make a statement along the lines … I have always paid my way, I have never intentionally caused anyone loss or harm and to be accused of avoiding payment for services rendered, as a person of honour and integrity having accusations causes much angst. As the Stuart motto states  Nemo me impune lacessit (No one provokes me with impunity).

Yours Aye!

Vlad_The_Inhaler

Not_A_Hope

This addresses one defence point and you should include reference to any evidence you intend to attach. However you should cite any supporting case law (Peel Centre) and attach as an exhibit. You no doubt will have raised many other points in your defence and you have the opportunity to expand on them in your WS  (unclear signage for one) and attach evidence /  case law. Don’t assume the judge is an expert in parking law.

Vlad_The_Inhaler

Not_A_Hope said:

This addresses one defence point and you include reference to any evidence you intend to attach. However you should cite any supporting case law (Peel Centre) and attach as an exhibit. You no doubt will have raised many other points in your defence and you have the opportunity to expand on them in your WS  (unclear signage for one) and attach evidence /  case law. Don’t assume the judge is an expert in parking law.

Thank you for responding and your constructive comments Not_A_Hope,

Case law additions is something I require advice on and pointing to the correct references. Feel free to chip in with some detail please.

Regards signage it is not a major issue with my case. The main gripe is the machine designed for people sat down, not 6'3"ers like me and its "not fit for purpose" design which adds to the chances of it incurring a NTK/PCN. the photos tell a good story of poor desgn, plus even worse placement, add to this their own images of the screen shows it difficult to see even when zoomed in, and photographed from a kneeling position )this screen is 35" off the floor.. I gave up limboing many decades ago..

The case I am trying to make is that I have paid, plus I didn't overstay.  It is almost entirely an issue with the machine and how BW Legal have interacted with me when they yesterday produced evidence supporting my case that I had paid...but still continued to drag me to court and make my life hell, harrassing me.

I am not entirely sure this is the correct course of action hence me posting this rough draft.

Again thank you for your post it is appreciated.

Kind regards.

Vlad.

Not_A_Hope

Have have a look at those WS that Coupon-Mad pointed you towards and KeithP showed you how to find them. You will find you can cut and paste most of the additional points that are relevant and the attached case law.

For the Peel Centre case law try Googling Excel v Mrs S Peel Centre and look for a link labelled Claim No from a nebula website. It was about 4th website down when I tried it and there is a pdf copy of the court transcript which supports your case

Coupon-mad

You haven't stated near the start whether you were driving - and if you were, you should state as much, where you say you were the keeper, and you should not say vague things like 'the person who went to pay'.

If it's you, then say so; this is your WS and you are the only true witness at the hearing!

Read this one from 2020:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/76904268/#Comment_76904268

And this one from 2016 so it's quite old (and has the old shorter statement of truth so don't copy that) but they both use as an exhibit, the 'QQ' case:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/71509068/#Comment_71509068

You might want to crib from their wording.

The transcript for the Excel Parking 'QQ Error Code' case can be found on the Parking Prankster's case law pages. Easy to Google and he only shows two short pages of transcripts, so it should be dead simple for you to locate and go get the transcript.

Add it to your exhibits.

What are your other exhibits? You obviously have Excel v Wilkinson because that's standard, as seen in the two example WS from 2022 that you were advised to base yours on.

Vlad_The_Inhaler

Not_A_Hope said:

Have have a look at those WS that Coupon-Mad pointed you towards and KeithP showed you how to find them. You will find you can cut and paste most of the additional points that are relevant and the attached case law.

For the Peel Centre case law try Googling Excel v Mrs S Peel Centre and look for a link labelled Claim No from a nebula website. It was about 4th website down when I tried it and there is a pdf copy of the court transcript which supports your case

Cheers Not_A_Hope, sound advice and greatly appreciated.

Best regards

vlad