UK PPO BW Legal Witness Statement

Coupon-mad

Ah sorry I thought you said they'd provided that photo.

No, I still warn against you using any close ups.

I assume their pic is either undated or not from the same year?  If so, you can shoot it down verbally in the hearing.

soleldn

Just realised its not even a picture of the sign, just the artwork

Coupon-mad

Great, so there are ZERO pics of the sign and what it actually said and which way it was twisted...

soleldn

Hi All,

I had my hearing and am very happy to say the case was dismissed. The key argument the case was dismissed on was that the claimant did not provide photographic evidence of the actual signage at the site at the date of the contraventions or at all. Only a specimen (artwork) of the signage was provided and a paper plan plotting where signage is located at the site. No clear statement in the WS or defence was made to identify the plan with signage as having been applicable to the site on the date of the contraventions. Given that my WS provided Google street view photos of the actual signage on dates before and after the contraventions, the burden of proof was on the claimant to provide photos of the signage at the date. The claimant did not address the fundamental issue of what signage was present and where it was placed at the date in their witness statement (although they did try to argue that this was the case at the hearing but presented no evidence of this). The judge noted this was particularly the case because from the GSV photos it was clear that signage had changed several times before and after the incident so it was on the claimant to prove what signage had actually been in place at the time.

The judge also referred to my argument that the parking terms on the signage had changed at the site but no additional notices were placed to inform drivers of this as required by IPC (not sure if this was a major factor in dismissing the case though).

The judge was not convinced by my argument that stewards at the site had allowed me to enter and park at the site and informed me that there were no parking restrictions. He believed I had given additional detail during the hearing that was not in my WS or defence.

He also did not pay much mind to:

-          the fact that the signage does not allow a grace period

-          the fact that the landowner contract was redacted and has expired since the contravention

-          the argument that a consumer notice should have been given after the 1st PCN was issued before a transactional decision was made by the driver to enter the parking later again that day and repeat the unknown breach (don’t think I expressed this point very well either)

The judge said that if signage had existed at the site on the date and it was compliant with Consumer Rights Act it would have constituted a contract that the driver was bound by.

I was awarded costs for loss of leave.

I would like to express my endless gratitude to those on this forum who work tirelessly to help people like me! This would definitely not have been possible without you, and I am extremely grateful.

All the best

Coupon-mad

soleldn said:

Hi All,

I had my hearing and am very happy to say the case was dismissed. The key argument the case was dismissed on was that the claimant did not provide photographic evidence of the actual signage at the site at the date of the contraventions or at all. Only a specimen (artwork) of the signage was provided and a paper plan plotting where signage is located at the site. No clear statement in the WS or defence was made to identify the plan with signage as having been applicable to the site on the date of the contraventions. Given that my WS provided Google street view photos of the actual signage on dates before and after the contraventions, the burden of proof was on the claimant to provide photos of the signage at the date. The claimant did not address the fundamental issue of what signage was present and where it was placed at the date in their witness statement (although they did try to argue that this was the case at the hearing but presented no evidence of this). The judge noted this was particularly the case because from the GSV photos it was clear that signage had changed several times before and after the incident so it was on the claimant to prove what signage had actually been in place at the time.

The judge also referred to my argument that the parking terms on the signage had changed at the site but no additional notices were placed to inform drivers of this as required by IPC (not sure if this was a major factor in dismissing the case though).

The judge was not convinced by my argument that stewards at the site had allowed me to enter and park at the site and informed me that there were no parking restrictions. He believed I had given additional detail during the hearing that was not in my WS or defence.

He also did not pay much mind to:

-          the fact that the signage does not allow a grace period

-          the fact that the landowner contract was redacted and has expired since the contravention

-          the argument that a consumer notice should have been given after the 1st PCN was issued before a transactional decision was made by the driver to enter the parking later again that day and repeat the unknown breach (don’t think I expressed this point very well either)

The judge said that if signage had existed at the site on the date and it was compliant with Consumer Rights Act it would have constituted a contract that the driver was bound by.

I was awarded costs for loss of leave.

I would like to express my endless gratitude to those on this forum who work tirelessly to help people like me! This would definitely not have been possible without you, and I am extremely grateful.

Yay, you won!  WELL DONE.  Congrats!
 And you were awarded costs too.

ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST!

As usual, the signage evidence was appalling.  Signs are what most cases are decided on.

And we sincerely hope that you are au fait with the need to respond to the final Government Public Consultation this Summer?

Anticipated IN MID JULY.  i.e. any week now!!

We all need to ram the nail in the coffin of the false £70 'DRA fee' add-on, that actually funds the court claim and toxic CCJ culture, as well as the DRA and roboclaim 'legals' gaslighting of people.

Please come back here when it opens.

If you are not a regular reader, to be alerted you'll need to bookmark the thread by MSE_JC at the top of the forum and enable (on your profile) email alerts for bookmarked threads.

Then join us when the Consultation opens. ...PLEASE!

We need all MSE-reading victims of this horrific harassment and bullying to be heard.