Advice on Witness Statement submission - Highview Parking Ltd/Group Nexus

Sebi_895

Firstly, thank you to @Trainerman and @1505grandadfor your comments.

I have updated the WS. It’s attached via links below along with the original Defence Letter.

Witness Statement_2nd try
https://www.dropbox.com/s/uo5edj58xf8ojpo/Witness Statement_Redacted_2nd try.pdf?dl=0

Defence Statement
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ql41utykbovml28/Defence%20Letter%20against%20Claim_Redacted.pdf?dl=0

Timeline Doc
https://www.dropbox.com/s/h85e2ek2d68ulrk/Timeline.pdf?dl=0

I would appreciate a final pair of eyes. 

With thanks in anticipation

Coupon-mad

If you are doing a timeline then change 'claimed' (which almost sounds reasonable) to 'demanded' and add a short comment about how each letter included bullying or misleading crap - e.g. 'Can't Pay? We'll Take it Away!'.

Otherwise, what is the purpose of the timeline?

Sebi_895

@Coupon-mad

Thank you.

Purpose of the timeline was to further highlight the fact that there was an abundance of debt recovery letters in a short period, nothing for a year followed by a hive of activity culminating in the county court claim. The emphasis also goes on to the amounts claimed which make no sense supporting my argument of it all being a mockery.
Honestly, if you feel it doesn't quite tally up to back the argument I'll withdraw it, as its not in the WS submission at this point.

Coupon-mad

I think the first section is useful because the sum demanded fluctuated wildly and yet nothing happened in 2018, but remove the word 'claimed' and also 'debt owed'.  It's neither.

The DCBLegal letters could be grouped together with a comment about what was misleading or bullying in those letters, certainly the threat to 'Take it Away' (pre-court? Obviously not!).

Sebi_895

Awesome, thank you for your rational and succinct advice.
Only problem is you guys will get another updated WS from me to look at now. 

1505grandad

Just checking:-

Defence categorically states:-

" The Defendant was not the driver of the vehicle in question and is unable to recall who was driving on

that unremarkable day over 4 years ago"

However the WS seems to throw doubt that the D may not have been driver:- 

"3. I am the registered keeper of the vehicle in question in this case. However, due to the

long passage of time since the alleged contravention, I am unable to recall who may

have been driving at the time given that the vehicle was insured with more than one

named driver at the specific time.

4. As stated in my defence, the date in question is unremarkable and I therefore have no

recollection of the circumstances surrounding the event which took place over 4 years

ago."

Para 13  -  I believe it it is not the norm to pose questions in WS  -  you put the claimant to strict proof.

Also the signs (some) seem to be EXCEL PARKING SERVICES  -  a completely different entity. 

Sebi_895

@1505grandad Thank you for checking, highly appreciated.

Re para 3 and 4 - Defendant was not the driver, correct. I see what you are saying so will amend the wording so it flows better in relation to the Defence.

Re para 13 - yes I did pose questions but more in a rehtorical sense. I take your sound advice and will amend the wording.

The Excel Parking signs are the current signage in the car park as per para 16. I'm trying to build the argument that thier old signage was inadequate.

Sebi_895

As per the recommendations, I have updated the WS.

Changes made:

·        Timeline added as Exhibit and referenced accordingly

·        Para 3 and 4 cleared up to flow in accordance with Defence Letter

·        Para 13 amended to remove rhetorical questioning

It’s attached via link below along with the original Defence Letter.

Witness Statement_21_Aug

https://www.dropbox.com/s/4afclgauv1q24t4/Witness Statement_Redacted_21_Aug.pdf?dl=0

Defence Letter

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ql41utykbovml28/Defence Letter against Claim_Redacted.pdf?dl=0

Your guidance is appreciated. With thanks in anticipation

Coupon-mad

Sebi_895 said:

As per the recommendations, I have updated the WS.

Changes made:

·        Timeline added as Exhibit and referenced accordingly

·        Para 3 and 4 cleared up to flow in accordance with Defence Letter

·        Para 13 amended to remove rhetorical questioning

It’s attached via link below along with the original Defence Letter.

Witness Statement_21_Aug

https://www.dropbox.com/s/4afclgauv1q24t4/Witness Statement_Redacted_21_Aug.pdf?dl=0

Defence Letter

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ql41utykbovml28/Defence Letter against Claim_Redacted.pdf?dl=0

Your guidance is appreciated. With thanks in anticipation

The defence is already submitted ages ago, yes?  So we only really need to comment on the WS? 

Sebi_895

Correct, Defence attached for reference. Comments required only for the WS.
Thanks.