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

KellfromHell

Fruitcake said:

There's more.

The car park no longer exists. Construction of a massive student accommodation block and multi-storey car park began in October 2020 and was completed in the summer of this year.

The GSV camera car appears to have only entered the car park in 2008, however it drove past the car park over a period of several years afterwards as can be seen by using the date slider near the top left.

De Montfort Way - Google Maps


The site map is not dated.
There is no key to indicate what each sign means.
There is no correlation between the signs indicated by the yellow and blue blobs on the site map and the images of signs in the claimant's WS. 
From GSV images taken in 2017, 2018, and 2019 it can be determined that the location of the signs in the site map do not tie up with the position of the signs in these images.

There were/are no buildings or walls within the car park until building work commenced in Oct 2020, yet the claimant has shown an image of a sign affixed to a wall. The claimant is put to strict proof that this particular sign and the wall were actually present at the time of the alleged event.

Fruitcake said:

The 0845 number on the stock image of a sign is a premium rate number that breaches Regulation 41 of the Consumer Contracts Regulations 2013. These regulations took effect on the 13th of June 2014. 

The omission of call costs from the sign breaches Ofcom regulations that took effect 1 July 2015. 

The 0845 number is also a breach of the BPA's Code of Practice, version 7, January 2018 to December 2019.

Para 18.6 If you provide a telephone line to respond to complaints, challenges and appeals from motorists relating to the terms and conditions of parking they have entered into, these calls must not be charged above the basic rate.

This requirement had been in place from October 2015 when version 6 of the CoP was introduced, ref para 18.7

Version 6 from February 2014 stated that an operator must not offer only a premium rate number but must also include a standard rate number as well, ref para 18.7.

The claimant was therefore aware that premium rate numbers were prohibited by consumer regulations from 2014, that they must be supplemented by standard rate numbers from 2014 and were prohibited by the BPA from 2015.

Either,
These signs were present at the time of the alleged event and thus breached the BPA's code of practice at the material time and breached consumer legislation,

Or,
The signs from the claimant's WS were not present at the material time.

This is very impressive! C has seriously messed this all up!

Sebi_895

@KellfromHell Good luck with the final WS now, there's a lot of extremely useful info here to take in. 

KellfromHell

Grizebeck said:

Is it video/telephone or f2f hearing?
If f2f please private message me the court name i may be able to assist if your local.

it is f2f, I will DM you shortly

KellfromHell

Sebi_895 said:

@KellfromHell Good luck with the final WS now, there's a lot of extremely useful info here to take in. 

Thank you and completely agree, it is really satisfying seeing this community rip apart "lawyers" if you can even call them that after these misses 

Ed2022

Fascinating and excellent work on this.

KellfromHell

Good Evening all,

Thank you for all your amazing help so far! Below is my updated WS and it would be great to get your advice on;

1. signage section (particularly paras 30 to 32)
2. BPA Violations (paras 33 to 38)
3. lack of landowner authority (paras 39 to 43)
4. the cost section (paras 70 to 75), specifically the Dammermann points as I will be pushing it
5. Is it preferable for the attacks on their WS to stay out of this document and save for court?

This has all been updated with this class information that has been provided so far!

document link: https://www.dropbox.com/s/pq9bnsekt22g0os/Witness%20Statement%20-%20REDACTED.pdf?dl=0

Tagging people so they get the notif: @Fruitcake, @Coupon-mad, @Le_Kirk, @Sebi_895, @Umkomaas, @Grizebeck, @1505grandad - apologies if I missed anyone

Grizebeck

Hmmm
The paragraph where you state you cant recall who was the driver is not good and it gives a mudded picture to the judge
One occasion is OK but 3 tickets (if read correctly) wouldnt wash

Sebi_895

@Grizebeck is spot-on! But I thought you were adding the point around more drivers using the car than the insurance? You're going to have to really hit home that you were not the driver, the wording has to be a lot better. Yes the burden is theirs to prove but a judge is more likely to throw that one out if its read like that. Can you categorically prove you were not driving on all ocassions?

Grizebeck

Sebi_895 said:

@Grizebeck is spot-on! But I thought you were adding the point around more drivers using the car than the insurance? You're going to have to really hit home that you were not the driver, the wording has to be a lot better. Yes the burden is theirs to prove but a judge is more likely to throw that one out if its read like that. Can you categorically prove you were not driving on all ocassions?

They dont need to prove it in that sense
Just to need to be very clear they were not and then being non POFA comes into play.

Le_Kirk

As this is a witness statement, it should be providing back-up and support, with evidence, to your defence.  As you state in your defence you were not the driver (on 3 occasions?) you should provide evidence as to where you were on those days, in  a meeting for which your employer can provide a witness statement, use Google timeline or similar.