Highview parking County Court Claim SAR and Defense advice - reduced timeframe due to postal error!

KellfromHell

@Coupon-mad, @Umkomaas, @Fruitcake, @Le_Kirk, @Sebi_895, I have just received their WS and the link is here: 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/zlbeg5905wun41w/Witness%20Statement%20-%20Paginated%20%281%29.pdf?dl=0

I would be keen to hear your thoughts around its strengths, the signs, and arguments. It seems rather standard. I have some specific questions;

1. Are there any arguments that I can rip this apart with?
2. Are the signs fair? Should I remove them from my WS?
3. Is this a strong WS from them?
4. How should I handle the cross-examination part?

Grizebeck

Concentrate on the POFA issue and that were not the driver(if thats the case)
Which court?

KellfromHell

Grizebeck said:

Concentrate on the POFA issue and that were not the driver(if thats the case)
Which court?

Thank you, I will be and I'm not comfortable sharing the court name, unless you mean Small Claims

Coupon-mad

So the signs fail to comply with the BPA CoP because they fail to offer the mandatory minimum discount of 40%.

Was the discount also £55 on the PCNs?

This disproves their contention that they are operating in accordance with the BPA CoP and clearly those signs are unauthorised by the BPA.

Re the alternative defence point:

Can you evidence in your WS that there was more than one driver of the car at the time (insurance document)?  They have admitted in the WS that they have not used the POFA and can't rely on it, and thus - by their own choice NOT to use the applicable law - they cannot hold the registered keeper liable (unless they were the driver and that is established as a fact at the hearing). Can you cast doubt on that assumption with evidence of named drivers?

KellfromHell

Coupon-mad said:

So the signs fail to comply with the BPA CoP because they fail to offer the mandatory minimum discount of 40%.

Was the discount also £55 on the PCNs?

This disproves their contention that they are operating in accordance with the BPA CoP and clearly those signs are unauthorised by the BPA.

Re the alternative defence point:

Can you evidence in your WS that there was more than one driver of the car at the time (insurance document)?  They have admitted in the WS that they have not used the POFA and can't rely on it, and thus - by their own choice NOT to use the applicable law - they cannot hold the registered keeper liable (unless they were the driver and that is established as a fact at the hearing). Can you cast doubt on that assumption with evidence of named drivers?

This is a great catch and I will be adding it!

Yeah it's my first exhibit (admiral doc) which shows 3 drivers, it's redacted here ofc. Also I realise I didn't reply to your case number in header, it is in the original but deleted from the shared version

Coupon-mad

And you have the cases of Lamoureux, and the persuasive appeal case of Excel v Smith and the POPLA Annual Report 2015 as exhibits too, along with Excel v Wilkinson?

You will have to also put in another exhibit: an excerpt from the BPA CoP now - the part that sets as mandatory, the 40% discount that hasn't changed in a decade!

Highview slipped up.  Unauthorised signs - the BPA would have spotted this in minutes, if any Audit took place. Jumped off the page at me.

Even if you had received the PCN you couldn't have paid the 'correct' amount of £51 or lower, because they failed to offer it.

A serious breach that you should report to the BPA as well - and say in your WS that the BPA 'are currently investigating under complaint ref BPAxxxxx' (you will get a complaint code - only briefly displayed - when you put in the complaint to the BPA this weekend - screenshot it and use it in your WS to cast doubt on everything Highview say).

I'd be saying: not only do Highview not bother with the POFA 2012 (admitted by their witness as if if doesn't matter, seemingly thinking that they know better than bothering to use keeper liability law) but their own evidence ALSO shows they don't pay regard to mandatory rules in the BPA CoP that have existed unchanged for a decade, either.

What exactly do Highview comply with, or are they winging it and hoping Defendant registered keepers & Judges don't notice?!  Surely this whole claim is more than hopeless, it is vexatious and meets the high bar of 'wholly unreasonable conduct' which opens the door to full costs for the Defendant, a registered keeper who has been wrongfully harassed and pursued for years and has only NOW seen that sign and that PCN.  Highview knew (or reasonably should have known) that their signage at this location was/is in flagrant breach of the BPA CoP all along, and have only now shown their hand after all these months. This conduct must meet the bar set in Dammerman. There is no reasonable explanation.

(That's what I'd be doing & saying.  Go for it like a Rottweiler).

Sebi_895

KellfromHell said:

what is the best way to submit this to the court/DCB? You mentioned in your thread there is a 50 page PDF limit so I'm assuming I post it?Sebi_895 said:

Personally, I'd say bind it all up and present it to the court in person and try to receive a confirmation of some sorts. If you have an email of the court then by all means go that way. Yes my court email had the 50 page limit which, in all honesty, I didn't understand considering it was barley 3MB in size but thats their thing; I was't too fussed with that limitation as I had already served it at the court. DCBL can receive it by email, serve it that way. The fact that I received my discontinuance in an email and not by post proves they've moved in to the digital age.

Sebi_895

Coupon-mad said:

And you have the cases of Lamoureux, and the persuasive appeal case of Excel v Smith and the POPLA Annual Report 2015 as exhibits too, along with Excel v Wilkinson?

You will have to also put in another exhibit: an excerpt from the BPA CoP now - the part that sets as mandatory, the 40% discount that hasn't changed in a decade!

Highview slipped up.  Unauthorised signs - the BPA would have spotted this in minutes, if any Audit took place. Jumped off the page at me.

Even if you had received the PCN you couldn't have paid the 'correct' amount of £51 or lower, because they failed to offer it.

A serious breach that you should report to the BPA as well - and say in your WS that the BPA 'are currently investigating under complaint ref BPAxxxxx' (you will get a complaint code - only briefly displayed - when you put in the complaint to the BPA this weekend - screenshot it and use it in your WS to cast doubt on everything Highview say).

I'd be saying: not only do Highview not bother with the POFA 2012 (admitted by their witness as if if doesn't matter, seemingly thinking that they know better than bothering to use keeper liability law) but their own evidence ALSO shows they don't pay regard to mandatory rules in the BPA CoP that have existed unchanged for a decade, either.

What exactly do Highview comply with, or are they winging it and hoping Defendant registered keepers & Judges don't notice?!  Surely this whole claim is more than hopeless, it is vexatious and meets the high bar of 'wholly unreasonable conduct' which opens the door to full costs for the Defendant, a registered keeper who has been wrongfully harassed and pursued for years and has only NOW seen that sign and that PCN.  Highview knew (or reasonably should have known) that their signage at this location was/is in flagrant breach of the BPA CoP all along, and have only now shown their hand after all these months. This conduct must meet the bar set in Dammerman. There is no reasonable explanation.

(That's what I'd be doing & saying.  Go for it like a Rottweiler).

Love it when @Coupon-mad gets in the zone!

Coupon-mad

With the BPA CoP (even an excerpt) and the other exhibits including your insurance policy from that year, you are going to have to print it all.  Maybe at a print shop, where you can get a durable paper receipt (print 3 bundles, one is for you) and buy TWO ring binders.

DON'T give the Claimant a ring binder version. That's for you and the Judge!

ALL pages must be numbered.  

Have the receipts and proof of your loss of leave/salary with you for the hearing. Attach what you can to your costs assessment and break down the hours you've spent on this matter, at £19 per hour. Or more ph, if your hourly rate is higher and you can prove it.

Don't forget this full costs assessment in your bundle you are posting, and how to argue the Dammerman 'unreasonable conduct' argument, to try to persuade the Judge that you deserve more than just your 'fixed costs'.  Helpfully, Highview's own WS (near the end) hands you the right CPR to cite about being granted further costs.

Also state (if you are of a mind to...) that if the Claimant should now discontinue at this very late juncture, AFTER seeing your evidence bundle that has cost time and money to research, prepare and print, you require the hearing not to be vacated and instead to hear the matter of costs.

Cite the bit about the WHITE BOOK annotation, that's in this forum's Template Defence, at the bottom...

(You can email the bundle to the Claimant, if you prefer not to post that).

Sebi_895

A query, you've only put in one of the PCNs as an exhibit but the claim appears to be for 4 PCNs, assuming this as the amount mentioned in the WS is for all 4. If thats the case then should you not add all PCNs as exhibits? This then means you should refer to the plural: PCNs in the WS. Not a biggie but I don't know what the claim from those jokers states.

A small typo at Para 44 - Small Clams Track - should be Small Claims Track

Glad you threw that joke of a letter in by SCS Law (Exhibit 02b) arguably the worst tactic ever to extort money!