Updated 08/03 - I won my case!

Le_Kirk

You submitted your defence here 4 April 2022 at 7:13AM <<<<<<<<< LINK
You should be using the witness statement examples pointed out by @Coupon-mad to back up and support what you put in the defence with evidence.

RoseNarene

Sorry yes I meant the WS. 

RoseNarene

Hi, I've completed a witness statement bundle thing!
I used the example of @aphex007's, so copied and pasted a few things that I thought were relevant. But honestly I just feel like I have no idea what I'm doing. But I mentioned everything I could think of in the hope that you will tell me if I've done it wrong!!

Oh and I forgot to tell you - I got caught out by this car park AGAIN very recently... but followed the early advice, popped in the appeal on Highview's website, and they dropped it within 2 weeks!

Now just need to get this one out of the way!! Thank you so much for all your help so far.
(removed - an updated version is a few posts down)

RoseNarene

Oh and I know it needs some tidying up presentation-wise (I'm no stranger to the Family Court, so I know what I need to do there) - just hoping you can help with the content, please  

RoseNarene

Oh I realise I didn't copy over one of the exhibits from the statement I copied. Will fix that. Apart from that, anything I need to add or remove or change? Thanks!

Coupon-mad

RoseNarene said:

Hi, I've completed a witness statement bundle thing!
I used the example of @aphex007's, so copied and pasted a few things that I thought were relevant. But honestly I just feel like I have no idea what I'm doing. But I mentioned everything I could think of in the hope that you will tell me if I've done it wrong!!

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/v2rn2see92u2hf8l65u1y/Parking-Witness.docx?dl=0&rlkey=7q7o6w7ei5shctsxqtkrp0u9z

We will take a look when one of us has a moment.

RoseNarene

The deadline is tomorrow so if someone can have a look this evening then that would be great, but I understand if no one gets the chance.

Fruitcake

One of the claim numbers is showing in para 13.

You have repeatedly mentioned that you may not have been the driver, but was the NTK PoFA compliant? If it was, it does not matter who was driving since the keeper can be held liable.
If it was not PoFA compliant then did you mention it in your defence? You need to include non compliant NTK meaning the keeper cannot be held liable if it was mentioned in your defence, but you cannot introduce new evidence.

If the NTK was non PoFA compliant, has the claimant tried to claim keeper liability in their claim or WS. If so, then you can challenge that by saying they haven't proved that you were driving and therefore on the balance of probabilities you were not.

Where you mention your children's conditions, you may be able to refer to the Equality Act 2010 where the service provider must make allowances for people with protected characteristics even if they were not aware of it beforehand. It is indirect discrimination not to make allowances for people with protected characteristics.
Breastfeeding of infants under 6 months is classed as a protected characteristic, so the service provider (claimant) must allow more time for that even if they are not aware a breastfeeding mother is present.

You could include evidence of the child's age at the time of the alleged event if it helps, but not otherwise. You could also include evidence of the other child's medical diagnosis as an exhibit.

The Consumer Rights Act 2015 states that the courts must consider the fairness of contract terms even if the subject has not brought to the attention of the courts before the hearing.
You may be able to use this to introduce indirect discrimination as per my comments above about the EA 2010.

Include the words "frustration of contract" since the vehicle could not leave for the reasons you have given. Where you talk about ANPR, mention that it only records time on site, not parking time, and in case number 3JD08399 ParkingEye v Ms X. (Altrincham 17/03/2014), the judge determined that waiting for a space is not parking.

RoseNarene

@Fruitcake I have no idea if the NTK was PoFA compliant, but they have the following in their statement: 

The Defendant does not dispute being the Driver or Keeper of the Vehicle. The Claimant reasonably  believes that the Defendant was the Driver, because they would otherwise have nominated a driver,  and therefore the Defendant is pursued on that basis. The Claimant has complied with POFA and can  pursue the Defendant as Keeper in the alternative. 

So I assume they were? I don't know anything about it (in spite of just looking it up!), so I can't say if they are being truthful on this point or not. 

My youngest was above 6 months old, so I can't claim discrimination on that basis. I will add the email I received from the NHS regarding my eldest, though. I did think about doing that so don't know why I didn't, really!!

I will add the other terms you mentioned.

Here's another copy (edited only to remove the claim number you pointed out was on show): https://www.dropbox.com/s/6zmjcxvf1rbkv14/Parking Witness - Copy.docx?dl=0

Thank you for your help!!

B789

RoseNarene said:

@Fruitcake I have no idea if the NTK was PoFA compliant, but they have the following in their statement: 

The Defendant does not dispute being the Driver or Keeper of the Vehicle. The Claimant reasonably  believes that the Defendant was the Driver, because they would otherwise have nominated a driver,  and therefore the Defendant is pursued on that basis. The Claimant has complied with POFA and can  pursue the Defendant as Keeper in the alternative. 

So I assume they were? I don't know anything about it (in spite of just looking it up!), so I can't say if they are being truthful on this point or not. 

My youngest was above 6 months old, so I can't claim discrimination on that basis. I will add the email I received from the NHS regarding my eldest, though. I did think about doing that so don't know why I didn't, really!!

I will add the other terms you mentioned.

Here's another copy (edited only to remove the claim number you pointed out was on show): https://www.dropbox.com/s/6zmjcxvf1rbkv14/Parking Witness - Copy.docx?dl=0

Thank you for your help!!

@RoseNarene you never showed us the main part of your original defence and you did not state whether, when you sent it, you included ALL the other paragraphs as advised. Did you do that?

Also, you received a response to your SAR which included all 3 PCNs. However, you state you have no idea whether they were POFA compliant. Really? After all this time you still don't know how to recognise a POFA compliant PCN?

Have you fully read, re-read and understood everything that is explained in the Newbies thread? If you had, you'd know that if the PCNs were not POFA compliant then liability for the the alleged debt cannot transfer from the driver to the RK, in which case, if you'd not previously identified the driver (using terms in initial appeals like "I parked..." or "My husband parked..." etc. then the PPC do not know who the driver is and don't have a case.

Whilst the PPC state:

• The Defendant does not dispute being the Driver or Keeper of the Vehicle. The Claimant reasonably  believes that the Defendant was the Driver, because they would otherwise have nominated a driver,  and therefore the Defendant is pursued on that basis. The Claimant has complied with POFA and can  pursue the Defendant as Keeper in the alternative.

That does not actually prove they are POFA compliant unless we can see the PCN to confirm. In which case, ignore the bit that says "the Defendant does not dispute being the driver..."because that is a speculation on their part. Then where they state:

• The Claimant reasonably  believes that the Defendant was the Driver, because they would otherwise have nominated a driver,

Really? Again, an assumption and not strict proof as required.