PCN Claim from 2020

Boat_to_Bolivia

Nice one @B789

Mrscompliant

B789 said:

Mrscompliant said:

Where can i find as pdf or image to include in my WS:

1. Excel Parking Services v Lamoureux C3DP56Q5

I've looked this forum and google with no results

I have taken the liberty of collating all these reference cases in a dropbox as it is getting increasingly difficult to find everything due to the ever-increasing number of posts and threads on this forum and the woefully inept search function. 

Excel v Lamoureux
Smith v Excel

I have the clean version of Smith v EXCEL PARKING C0DP9C4E 

B789

Mrscompliant said:
I have the clean version of Smith v EXCEL PARKING C0DP9C4E 

Thank you. I have now updated the version in dropbox. I will soon post a reference sheet with the links as there are now about 15 regularly used cases and other documents.

Mrscompliant

I have finally finished my WS even though i am late to submit.

Is this ready to submit Witness Statement

1505grandad

Your o/p stated:-

"I have receive a county claim on 10 January from Highview parking relating to 4 PCNs as stated in the claim form."

A pedantic observation that your para 39 refers to a singular parking event, pcn, ntk etc.

B789

Did you ever receive the Claimants WS after the email with nothing actually attached? How late are you for filing? What is the hearing date? If you email first thing tomorrow morning, it shouldn't be a problem, especially if you haven't received theirs yet. Remember that you should also include DCB Legal in the email address and CC yourself in as a "proof of posting" for your records.

Mrscompliant

1505grandad said:

Your o/p stated:-

"I have receive a county claim on 10 January from Highview parking relating to 4 PCNs as stated in the claim form."

A pedantic observation that your para 39 refers to a singular parking event, pcn, ntk etc.

1. The Claimant is put to strict proof that, at the time of the parking events that the signage was evident, correct and clearly visible at the entrance to the car park and within the car park. The operator did not comply with the 'signage' and 'entrance signs' sections of the BPA Code of Practice on the original claims, therefore is incapable of forming a legally binding contract. The Notice to Keepers was not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (‘PoFA’), and therefore incapable of holding the keeper liable. Furthermore, with a 'non-POFA' PCNs like this one, the Claimant has no lawful business issuing claims to registered keepers with no evidence whatsoever of a driver's identity. The Claimant is put to strict proof that they have standing to make contracts with drivers and litigate in their own name, rather than merely acting as agents for a principal, as some parking firms do. The sum claimed is regarded to be highly unfair and with the ‘additional charges’ which constitutes ‘double recovery’. The court is invited to find the quantum claimed to be false and an abuse of process; adding costs/damages/fees onto a parking charge is now banned. The tactics employed by the Claimant and their representatives were aggressive and threatening and the fact that they used such narrative in the numerous letters, along with an inflated cost model, all constituted to harassment and bullying. As alluded to in my Defence Statement, this claim is entirely without merit and I urge the court to dismiss the claim on the evidence provided in this witness statement. This whole process is with no substance and can only be seen to be wasting the precious time of the court and the Defendant.

I've corrected it, hope this is better. Thank you

Mrscompliant

B789 said:

Did you ever receive the Claimants WS after the email with nothing actually attached? How late are you for filing? What is the hearing date? If you email first thing tomorrow morning, it shouldn't be a problem, especially if you haven't received theirs yet. Remember that you should also include DCB Legal in the email address and CC yourself in as a "proof of posting" for your records.

Yes, there was nothing attached to the email except for their logo, which took me by surprise. 

I should have filed by last week, i will be giving it by hand tomorrow morning to the court if i can print it off by tonight. The hearing date is 17th of this month.

B789

Mrscompliant said:

The Claimant is put to strict proof that, at the time of the parking events that the signage was evident, correct and clearly visible at the entrance to the car park and within the car park. The operator did not comply with the 'signage' and 'entrance signs' sections of the BPA Code of Practice on the original claims, therefore is incapable of forming a legally binding contract. The Notices to Keepers was were not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (‘PoFA’), and therefore incapable of holding the keeper liable. Furthermore, with a 'non-POFA' PCNs like this one these, the Claimant has no lawful business issuing claims to registered keepers with no evidence whatsoever of a driver's identity. The Claimant is put to strict proof that they have standing to make contracts with drivers and litigate in their own name, rather than merely acting as agents for a principal, as some parking firms do. The sum claimed is regarded to be highly unfair and with the ‘additional charges’ which constitutes ‘double recovery’. The court is invited to find the quantum claimed to be false and an abuse of process; adding costs/damages/fees onto a parking charge is now banned. The tactics employed by the Claimant and their representatives were aggressive and threatening and the fact that they used such narrative in the numerous letters, along with an inflated cost model, all constituted to harassment and bullying. As alluded to in my Defence Statement, this claim is entirely without merit and I urge the court to dismiss the claim on the evidence provided in this witness statement. This whole process is with no substance and can only be seen to be wasting the precious time of the court and the Defendant.

I've corrected it, hope this is better. Thank you

Perhaps the few bold bits I have corrected would be advisable too.

Coupon-mad

Looks fine except a misspelling of Beavis in the exhibits list.