Phase 1: CCJ Removed. Phase 2: Claim Discontinued. Phase 3: Costs.

Mouse007

An acknowledgment which of course is immensely helpful in showing the email was sent and received.

Harvez63

Coupon-mad said:

The second option. They'll probably do it late and no-one will care. It WON'T be thrown out.

This really annoys me. They're completely a law to themselves. It should be thrown out just on their behaviour alone. 

Can I add into my WS about the CCJ, they way in which they've behaved? or is that left just within the defence already served?  

Feeling a bit of pressure now, just due to time constraints but I will burn the midnight oil as said ... actually I'm already doing that so I guess I'll burn the midmorning oil to, if such a thing 

I really wanted their documents that they're going to rely on so I could see what photos they are going to try and use. My only source for images is google and here. It was 5 years ago on a spot where it depends what month you look at, to what signs where up and where

Coupon-mad

I'd do a separate crib sheet for yourself (NOT filed/served, but for you to voice on the day to support your costs) all about the course of conduct of unreasonableness, like the recently written one you find when you search the forum for the word Horsefield.

BikingBud

Coupon-mad said:

I'd do a separate crib sheet for yourself (NOT filed/served, but for you to voice on the day to support your costs) all about the course of conduct of unreasonableness, like the recently written one you find when you search the forum for the word Horsefield.

@Harvez63 great advice.

If you can do a mind map, perhaps try here: https://gitmind.com/free-mind-map-software.html and append that, A3 format so you can see it all easily, only to the front of your bundle giving the key words and areas of your defence you can then rapidly find the section and doc ref within your folder.

An old revision technique but is a really good way to navigate an open book exam.

Been following this for a while and really drilling for you, you've been immense, stick it to em!

Harvez63

Thank you @Coupon-mad and @BikingBud

I visited the site yesterday, I knew it probably wouldnt help seeing anything 5 years later, but it just confirmed the signage has changed yet again, everything has grown in size considerably, and there's even a huge reminder when exiting the car park now asking if you've paid ... frustratingly, they've made it clear now about parking restrictions. 

2017, note the entrance sign, and sign on the back wall (only two signs during my visit)


Even google now, the entrance sign is 3x the size, and the rear sign on the dark wall is now twice the size to. 



Photos I took 

This sign is massive now 


and this definitely wasn't part of the original signage! 


Another additional sign added to the site


Another new sign, already starting to become unreadable 


This sign wasn't there during my stay. Theres always kids sat on this wall to, ironically even yesterday and I was tempted to take a photo to show and blur them out, but thought better of it. Plus it wasn't there originally anyway! 



The below signs where there, but they say nothing about parking terms on them. 



This is the photo on the rear wall, absolutely massive now! Also this wall is normally shaded throughout the day, its only because it was late afternoon sun it was lite up, but again its quite clearly grown in size since 2017



The two white signs are both new. The one to the right hand side moves/gets removed consistently through google maps. Wasn't there at the time of my visit.



This is the approach into the car park, its a bit misleading now because there's more signage regarding parking, and its single road due to road works so I'm on the "wrong side of the road" for the normal approach and in a much higher car then at the time 

Entrance sign was a third of the size, the sign under the subway sign wasn't there either. 


Again that wall is normally in the dark as the sun rises over the building, and it was half the size at least 


(photos taken by rear passenger to show drivers view)

Fruitcake

What matters is what the signs were like at the material time. The fact that new and better signs have since been introduced supports the case that they were inadequate at the time and the PPC has admitted this by conduct (by the installation of bigger and better signs).

The new sign that is falling apart also supports your case because it proves the condition of the signs is not being monitored and no care is being taken to ensure they are maintained in a readable state.
It is reasonable to assume therefore on the balance of probabilities that they weren't maintained and readable at the material time either.

B789

Even with the newer signs, they're still !!!!!!. You just have to compare them to the PE ones in Beavis to see the difference.

Harvez63

Thank you! 

I'm really struggling with this WS, I'll try and get a draft up ASAP. I dont have the time to put the research in to a couple of examples as I did before but doing my best and I'm worried it'll be so far wrong it'll take a couple of stabs to get on track.

BTW, postman's been and nothing received from BWL. Second time they've ignored judges orders now 

Harvez63

I'm going to post the first part of my WS, just covering sequence of events incase I'm going way of track if anyone could spare a moment or two to look over and comment/improve, or tell me I've been an idiot and gone completely the wrong direction with it (probably the later)

1.   I am Mr xxxxxx of xxxxxxxxxxx, and I am the defendant against whom this claim is made. The facts below are true to the best of my belief and my account has been prepared based upon my own knowledge. 

2.   In my statement I shall refer to exhibits within the evidence supplied with this statement, referring to page and reference numbers where appropriate. My defence is repeated and I will say as follows: 

Sequence of events

3.   I visited Subway on Spring Road, Southampton, on 28-12-2017. 

4.   It was the first time visiting the site and a last minute decision to get food on the way home. On entry to the site I did not see any contractual signage on entering the car park, or during the 13 minute stay which was within the car the entire time. 

5.   The car park is entered from a busy road with both people, cars and delivery lorry’s to consider.

6.   My partner went inside subway whilst I remained in the car. During which the car park was empty, and I turned around in a bay, and sat adjacent to the parking spaces/building. From this seated position in the car whilst stopped, no signs where visible in any direction, and none where noticed during the manoeuvre.

 7.   The car park is between Subway and Tesco’s, The car park boundary includes and appears to serve these stores, but the parking is apparently owned by Vets4Pets in the building adjacent, something learned after the event. 

 8.   Shortly after this I learned of the PCN which was issued to my address, followed by a barrage of letters threating of “CCJs” and “Debt Recovery”. The original fine was asking for £60 if paid early, then it was upped to £100. 

 9.   I appealed the fine with their online appeal portal, but was immediately rejected. Which I’ve researched online and its self-regulated and I couldn’t find a single person that had successfully reported they’d accepted the appeal, but instead hundreds instantly rejected. 

 10. 5 months later (26th June 2019) I received a letter from the claims legal team now demanding £160, which now included £60 “initial legal costs”.

 11. 16 days later, I received the second later from the claimants legal team, threatening of further fees equating to £247.30 which included additional amounts for estimated interest (£12.30), estimated court fees (£25) and estimated solicitors costs (£50).

 12. Upon researching the site after receiving these letters, I found there was a small sign on entry reading “Parking restrictions in place, see additional signs for full details” [exhibit 01]. This sign isn’t readable on entry whilst trying to cross a busy road, across a public footpath, and into the carpark due to its size and location. 

 13. The additional sign was not only very small but it was in a very dark corner of the site and at a height that’s not readable from a car, and in the direction of a brick wall/deadend, which one wouldn’t walk or look towards to notice the additional sign [exhibit 02]. 

 14. There are two signs, to two spaces on a low wall which read “Vets4Pets Veterinary Surgery, Client Parking Only” [exhibit 03]. I did not park, nor manoeuvre within these spaces.

 15. Whilst researching the site, the signs move every 6 months according to google historic data. Not only the position of the signs, but the frequency in which they’re displayed.  [Exhibits 01 & 04-08]

 16. I visited the site again on 01/05/2023, and the signs have quadrupled in size and frequency compared to 2017 during my visit where only 2 small signs existed in a font only readable from 1 metre away. [Exhibits 08, 09 10]

 17. The new exit sign has made it clear that parking restrictions are in place [Exhibit 11] this wasn't there 28.12.2017

18. Some of the new signs are falling apart yet again and the condition of the signs appear aren't being checked or maintained to ensure they’re in a readable state [Exhibit 12]. 

Harvez63

I will tidy these up, but I didn't want to spend too much time on them incase I was approaching this wrong. Please note I will also correct the spelling of 'exhibit' and find a way to add a white back ground to make it clearer. I have a real problem spelling exhibit correctly 

exhibit 01

exhibit 02



exhibit 03



exhibit 04



exhibit 05



exhibit 06



exhibit 07



exhibit 08



exhibit 09



exhibit 10



exhibit 11



exhibit 12