Defence Statement due tomorrow - Leave for my Wedding overseas also tomorrow!

Fruitcake

Don't forget to include a transcript of the Jopson case as well, plus screenshots from the Companies House website showing that MB and BW are completely different companies.

Coupon-mad

And maybe add a paragraph saying you note that the Claimant's WS includes a letter from Bransby Wilson saying MB can act on their behalf to issue PCNs but that puts the Claimant in some difficulties:

(a) this means there is a 'disclosed principal' - Bransby Wilson - the presence of which in fact supports the defence argument that any alleged contract was offered by BW (going by the ambiguous signs) and only BW had the locus to sue drivers;

(b) there is no evidence that Bransby Wilson are in fact the landowner. They appear to be agents, who have employed the Claimant as agents;

(c)  it is trite law that an agent cannot sue over a contract offered by a disclosed principal;

Smith8

Thank you Fruitcake and Coupon-mad, all points noted and added.

I've just submitted my 56 Page WS to the Claimant and Court.

As always, very grateful.

Smith8

***UPDATE - I WON AT THE COURT HEARING***   

Hello All,

After 18 months of hassle and perseverance I can finally say I had my day in court and the Judge dismissed the claim in my favour.

The two main points for my success were:

>The Claimant failed to meet the 'relevant period' of 14 days in issuing the PCN according to POFA.  

>I maintained I only pulled over to fix my faulty vehicle outside of the main car park and didn't use a marked space. Their contract from the landowner showed 3 areas of enforcement - my argument was I didn't enter those designated areas and remained on the entrance road (even though I'd gone through the ANPR camera).

I asked for costs of £95 for loss of leave but in the end the Judge awarded me £40 (as the claimant argued it wasn't a full day hearing).  I also managed to get my mileage and the cost of my parking ticket that day!

In summary, a great deal of time and work, but it paid off and it's another win against these absolute con-artists!

Thank you all for your guidance and support and the selfless work you do here. 

Good luck to anyone going through the same. 

B789

Well done and bask in the knowledge that it has cost the claimant and their solicitors much more.

Coupon-mad

Well done @Smith8 !  Yay!

Bet you were buzzing!

ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST!

...we have one favour to ask, please:

We need you - as a genuine PPC victim of aggression, sharp practice and an 'extortion' attempt to add £70 - to respond robustly to the Public Consultation on the level of parking charges and banning of the false added DRA 'fee' that too many honest motorists currently fall victim to.

It will need consumer input (powerful voices) but change is afoot. It's taken about 5 years to get to this stage:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6333036/breaking-news-government-has-announced-the-statutory-code-of-practice-and-enforcement-framework/p1

And then the industry threw victims' money at it and blocked and delayed it - explained here:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/79310609/#Comment_79310609

Please now Bookmark BOTH threads and set up email alerts on your posting profile, so that you get an email alert when we post there, as we will, once the Public Consultation opens...

...anticipated by July...!

We need people like you and your driving family & friends to respond in high numbers!  You have a personal story to tell about the culture of getting a roboclaim 'legal' firm to add a pointless £70 for their own profit, to be let loose to intimidate people.

I am sure you want your voice heard to stop this happening again.