Late Defence

mercuteio

(b) putting them to strict proof of landowner authority.  It's in your defence but you've not touched on it here.  It is in the exemplar WS by aphex007.

Could anyone put a link up to where this witness statement is? I've been searching the forum for a little while, and I can see several references to it in a separate discussion by @aphex007, but can't find the witness statement example itself?

Many thanks!

Le_Kirk

Click on the name and it takes you to their profiles, click on discussions and scroll down to where you will find all their ........ well discussions.

Coupon-mad

If you are satisfied that the WS they have sent you already proves 'landowner authority' then forget that and concentrate on your main point: Insufficient poorly lit signs.

mercuteio

Ah, got it - I didn't see that the discussion link was on the side! I just kept scrolling down.

Thanks @Le_Kirk!

mercuteio

Coupon-mad said:

If you are satisfied that the WS they have sent you already proves 'landowner authority' then forget that and concentrate on your main point: Insufficient poorly lit signs.

Got it - on it now! Sweating, as was hoping to submit a bound copy this afternoon. Fingers crossed!

mercuteio

Ok, quick question - I'm running very late now, and have amended everything suggested by @Coupon-mad except for the red hand rule bit because I've included it in the Defence already, and I think perhaps it may reflect badly on me if I copy that same paragraph directly into my Witness Statement?

Unfortunately, my understanding of this rule is pretty superficial, so I don't want to ad lib a paragraph now, as I have a suspicion that I may highlight the fact that I don't fully understand the facts!

So, what do you think? Should I copy it directly from my Defence into the Witness Statement, or just leave it out? If it's in my Defence, can I still rely on it if needed during the trial?

Thanks so much!

Coupon-mad

You can rely on it anyway. No worries.

In fact s71 of the CRA 2015 means that the court MUST consider the test of prominence (part of the requirement for fairness in the Act) ...EVEN IF it was never pleaded!

The CRA is King!  I love s71 of that legislation!

mercuteio

Coupon-mad said:

You can rely on it anyway. No worries.

In fact s71 of the CRA 2015 means that the court MUST consider the test of prominence (part of the requirement for fairness in the Act) ...EVEN IF it was never pleaded!

The CRA is King!  I love s71 of that legislation!

Ha!!

Perfect - thank-you so much @Coupon-mad, and all of the rest of this forum, as always!

Right, going to run and get this printed/bound/submitted! Be in touch soon

mercuteio

So then, here's a turn-up for the books. Having submitted my Witness Statement on 4th April (Tuesday), I received this email from ParkingEye yesterday:

WITHOUT PREJUDICE, SAVE AS TO COSTS

 

Good morning, 

 

As a gesture of goodwill, we are willing to offer to discontinue the above referenced claim with no liability admitted and no further costs incurred by either side. Parkingeye can confirm that no costs were mentioned at the previous hearing. This is conditional on you, the Defendant, also discontinuing your counterclaim against Parkingeye Limited, the Claimant.

 

It is Parkingeye’s position that your counterclaim has no legal basis as costs in defending proceedings are not claimable within the Small Claims Track, where the fixed costs regime applies (CPR 27.14). We further contend that the same should be struck out.

 

This offer is made to you on a Without Prejudice basis and as a gesture of goodwill, but will only remain open until 4pm on 14th April 2023.

 

Yours Sincerely,

ParkingEye Enforcement Team

Delicious. What are your thoughts? 

My feeling is that the amount of work I've had to put in to prepare the Defence/Witness Statement etc needs to be compensated for, at least slightly, so I'm thinking of sending the response below. There's always the chance that I could lose in court if they don't accept, but I'm quietly confident of a win. 

What do you think? Accept their offer, or send the counter-offer below?

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Dear Sir,

Thank-you for putting forward this offer. Having seen the evidence pack provided, you will now be aware that your claim that “there is sufficient ambient lighting from lampposts in the car park” (p4, Claimant Witness Statement) is far from the truth, and that you have no grounds for the case you have raised against me. Indeed, the entire basis of this claim has seen me become a victim of ParkingEye’s neglectful approach to illumination of signage during the hours of darkness, and a complete unwillingness to accept that this is the case until it is made unequivocally clear. This claim therefore results from a fault on the part of the Claimant, not the Defendant.

I have given this some thought, and cannot reconcile the amount of work I have been made to do because of this claim. As such, my terms for discontinuing the case are as follows:

1) ParkingEye fully reimburses me for the total amount listed in my Schedule of Costs, which is £210.80

2) This money is received before 4pm on 14th April 2023

This offer saves you the legal expenses of proceeding to trial, saves the court time, and allows me to be satisfied that the work I have been made to do as a result of this unnecessary and baseless claim has not been entirely wasteful.

Please note that I will only discontinue the trial if the money is received within my bank account by the deadline provided. Therefore, payment by bank transfer will be the quickest method, and I will send my bank details to you should you accept this counter-offer. Payment by cheque is also acceptable, but two days will be required for clearance of the cheque, and therefore I will need to receive this by 12th April 2023.

Yours faithfully

mercuteio

I may add in one further condition that ParkingEye discontinues any other charges or claims it currently holds against me, as they are currently pursuing me for another ridiculous charge that they've passed onto DCBL, which is a future battle waiting to happen. Thoughts?