court hearing with UK CPM (Gladstones) please help with witness statement

Johnersh

Just a note in case the claimant argues that their sign was in place at the time of the incident.

West London Mental Health NHS Trust ceased to exist in Sept 2018 according to Google. That was ostensibly a name change, but it is at least probable that permits were issued for the new trust and it is unlikely 2 years on that staff or visitors were after displaying a permit for that entity as supposed to West London NHS Trust. 

mhagle

i sent everything across and even checked it with the court to make sure as a while back i sent them my details they said they didn't receive it. Thank you again coupon-mad.

the picture that they sent with the claim is not clear. But they have used a stock image from 2019. Thank you Johnersh. 

mhagle

this is the sign that they took a picture of.

Castle

Johnersh said:

Just a note in case the claimant argues that their sign was in place at the time of the incident.

West London Mental Health NHS Trust ceased to exist in Sept 2018 according to Google. That was ostensibly a name change, but it is at least probable that permits were issued for the new trust and it is unlikely 2 years on that staff or visitors were after displaying a permit for that entity as supposed to West London NHS Trust. 

Here's the legislation enacting the change of name on 31st August 2018:-
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2018/950/made?view=plain

Coupon-mad

mhagle said:

this is the sign that they took a picture of.

And that proves your point!  Use that to draw it to the Judge's attention at the hearing.  If their ticketer could not even get a clear image with a phone that he/she could zoom in with - and when shining a light on the sign - what chance does a driver have in the dark?  This is in clear breach of the CRA 2015 fairness test, which includes an obligation for 'prominence' and 'clarity' of terms and consumer notices. Basically, you have to be able to read a contract to be deemed bound by it.

mhagle

i will definitely use that coupon-mad. 

Also in the claim they mention that i have not appealed or replied to their parking fine, can this go against me in court?


I really appreciate the help everyone has given me. Thank you all. 

Coupon-mad

The Judge might ask why you didn't appeal but that's easily answered, that the self-serving appeals service used by this rogue industry - particularly the so-called IAS 'kindly offered' by the likes of UKCPM - is widely denounced (even by solicitors) as a kangaroo court and the colourful red text demands bore all the hallmarks of a scam.

The likes of UKCPM use debt collector intimidation and they misuse the courts as a cheap and scary form of debt collection, to bring consumers to heel and frighten them into paying inflated demands. There was no appeal.  

This view is supported by the fact that the IAS Annual Reports boast about only allowing FOUR PER CENT of decided appeals and the retired Judge Chief Adjudicator (whilst glowingly praising parking firms and also including politically-barbed opinions) even blamed consumers during lockdown of using the pandemic as an excuse. It is also supported by the fact that the Govt has just stepped in to finally stop what they call 'rip-offs' and 'extortion' and will be replacing the failed appeals services with a proper one in 2023.

mhagle

hi, i wanted ask would not putting the date on the witness statement go against me as thats one of the points that the solicitor wrote on the trail bundle.

However i have signed the statement of truth and dated it the day i sent it out to the court and the solicitor. 

Johnersh

So thin, I need a microscope.

What do they say about the statement? If a document contains the correct declaration is signed and dated, I struggle to see the lack of a date elsewhere matters. It was served on time and (unlike the approach the claimant will adopt) they can cross examine you if they dispute the content.

Conversely, you are likely to have received a statement prepared by a paralegal, who merely repeats what s/he is instructed to state, who may never have visited the site and who is not attending to address the points raised.

Further, the claimant is unlikely to call the parking attendant - the one employee that actually may be able to give factual evidence of the events on the day in question.

So one might ask the judge... Who is at the disadvantage, them or you? Have they really adduced proper evidence to *prove* the contract was formed and what it said?

The particulars won't say what the signage said. The sign is unreadable, so all you potentially have is some sort of reproduction of what it is supposed to say.