Opinions on my defence

Coupon-mad

Up to you.

Whatever is easier!  Make it the best mix you can.

I can't just update the NEWBIES thread without asking for it to be opened, and there are a few changes due.  However, as things are in flux with the new Code of Practice being stalled temporarily, I was hanging on before making changes this year.

carbon8

Hi

I have re-done my witness statement now, using the updated case law etc.

There is a link here to view a redacted copy.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ic46h7cg8qgb5v2/Witness Statement.pdf?dl=0

I would again really appreciate any comments or suggestions as It needs to be in by the 10th!

Cheers!

c8

1505grandad

Some observations so far:-

Para 8  -  the claimant UKPC are BPA AoS members NOT IPC as stated. In fact should this para be in the WS as para 19 covers it?

In July this year your op stated:-

"The incident happened back in June 21,....."

You should therefore be using/quoting from/exhibiting BPA CoP V8 dated January 2020. However you have presumably copied and pasted the following:-

Exhibits  -  "Exhibit XX-09 - BPA Code of Practice Version 6"

Unless I missed you do not in fact actually refer to this exhibit in the main body of the WS.

carbon8

@1505grandad thank you very much for your help!

1505grandad said:

Some observations so far:-

Para 8  -  the claimant UKPC are BPA AoS members NOT IPC as stated. In fact should this para be in the WS as para 19 covers it?

Ah yes, I see what you mean, I will remove this bit.

In July this year your op stated:-

"The incident happened back in June 21,....."

You should therefore be using/quoting from/exhibiting BPA CoP V8 dated January 2020. However you have presumably copied and pasted the following:-

Exhibits  -  "Exhibit XX-09 - BPA Code of Practice Version 6"

Unless I missed you do not in fact actually refer to this exhibit in the main body of the WS.

That is right, I left it in there as it seemed relevant but I think it can be removed as I dont think I needed it after I entered my circumstances as you have pointed out!

Cheers!

c8

carbon8

I have updated the document to reflect your comments @1505grandad. What I have done is update Exhibit XX-09 to be be version 8 of the BPA COP, and then update Para 8 so that it refers to this exhibit, instead of referring to the IPC code. I personally think the IPC code is better worded than the BPA one, I guess these bodies are not compulsory for the operators to join? So they will go with the most lax one?

I think it should make more sense now!

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ic46h7cg8qgb5v2/Witness Statement.pdf?dl=0

Thanks again for the help, it is massively appreciated as I am totally new to this process. It is quite satisfying it in a way though, just hope the WS is good enough to get a result!

Cheers!

c8

Le_Kirk

carbon8 said:

Thanks again for the help, it is massively appreciated as I am totally new to this process. It is quite satisfying it in a way though, just hope the WS is good enough to get a result!

Your witness statement will get a result if it backs up and supports what you stated in your defence and you provide the evidence to go with it.

carbon8

In my Defence, I think I did make a small mistake in that I said that the sign did not mention parking on paved areas, but i have checked again and it did. I was looking at a copy of the sign from google which was a mistake I guess. Do you think that I should mention that? I'm not sure it is that relevant since I am saying that I did not notice the sign because it was inadequate, but should I be correcting the record in some way?

Coupon-mad

Why do you think the sign on Google is wrong? It can't be.

carbon8

I compared it to the one that they took on the day and even though the photo they provided is illegible, it does look different, the layout is not the same. I think the one on google must be an older version.

The photo they took on the day looks the same layout as the signs that are there now, so I don't think they have been changed since the incident which is what I had presumed when writing the Defence. An honest mistake, but I just don't want to give them anything to pull me up on! I just haven't mentioned it at all in the WS.

This is the google one

This is the actual

Coupon-mad

That photo of theirs shows the so-called terms are illegible, not prominent as the CRA 2015 requires.

Is their photo timestamped?