PCM Claim Form time to write a defence

B789

3. I am XX XXXXX (see Image 01: Marriage Certificate Proof of Name Change) The vehicle XXXXXXXX was one of two vehicles I own (see Image 02: V5 Document Proof of Ownership). It was parked in a visitor bay (see Image 03: XXXXXXXX Visitor Bay) outside my flat where I lived (see Image 04:  XXXXXXX XXXXX Tenancy Agreement and Image 05: Council Tax Bill 2023/2024).

Your V5C does not prove "ownership". In fact, it specifically states near the top (go look) that the document is not proof of ownership. You should be stating that the vehicle is one of two that are registered in your name. "Ownership" is irrelevant in this issue.

Coupon-mad

No that's a really old one.  No-one uses Britannia v Crosby from Southampton (DECISION WAS APPEALED & OVERTURNED) and I don't know how you found that old thing? Bin it.

I edited the NEWBIES thread last month to show current exemplar WS.  Not that one!

Secondly, this has to be a separate WS, separate sheet of paper, signed under a Statement of Truth by this witness:

Witness Statement from Driver

6. I, XXXXXXXXXXXX, am the driver of the vehicle XXXXXXXXXX. This was my main vehicle for driving to my place or work.  The vehicle had been parked up for the Easter holidays, and so had not been in use since Good Friday April 2nd 2021.

7. I park in a visitor bay as my spouse (XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX) parks the family car in the residential parking bay. I parked my vehicle in the visitor bay as I have always done since moving into our property in January 2017.

1505grandad

A heads-up  -  make sure that any c & p statements are applicable to your case. The following hopefully will not appear anyway in the exemplar you use but is just for an example of the pitfalls of blindly c & p (unless of course they are actually true for your case):-

" In support of that argument, I remind the court that I appealed and engaged with the Claimant at every step and they knew all along that the tariff has been paid. Not only could this claim have been avoided and the Claimant has no cause of action but it is also vexatious to pursue an inflated sum that includes double recovery. This is compounded by the witness altering the Statement of Truth (an attempt to avoid a personal duty) and attaching stock images of signs instead of actual images and a redacted 'landowner authority' document that could be from anyone."

Johnson2015

B789 said:

3. I am XX XXXXX (see Image 01: Marriage Certificate Proof of Name Change) The vehicle XXXXXXXX was one of two vehicles I own (see Image 02: V5 Document Proof of Ownership). It was parked in a visitor bay (see Image 03: XXXXXXXX Visitor Bay) outside my flat where I lived (see Image 04:  XXXXXXX XXXXX Tenancy Agreement and Image 05: Council Tax Bill 2023/2024).

Your V5C does not prove "ownership". In fact, it specifically states near the top (go look) that the document is not proof of ownership. You should be stating that the vehicle is one of two that are registered in your name. "Ownership" is irrelevant in this issue.

Ok ill remove the wording ownership and just state registered vehicle. Thank you very much for pointing this out. 

Johnson2015

Coupon-mad said:

No that's a really old one.  No-one uses Britannia v Crosby from Southampton (DECISION WAS APPEALED & OVERTURNED) and I don't know how you found that old thing? Bin it.

I edited the NEWBIES thread last month to show current exemplar WS.  Not that one!

Secondly, this has to be a separate WS, separate sheet of paper, signed under a Statement of Truth by this witness:

Witness Statement from Driver

6. I, XXXXXXXXXXXX, am the driver of the vehicle XXXXXXXXXX. This was my main vehicle for driving to my place or work.  The vehicle had been parked up for the Easter holidays, and so had not been in use since Good Friday April 2nd 2021.

7. I park in a visitor bay as my spouse (XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX) parks the family car in the residential parking bay. I parked my vehicle in the visitor bay as I have always done since moving into our property in January 2017.

Ok. Yes I did ask the question before about the driver's WS being a separate doc but didn't get a reply, so just assumed it was put on the same doc. I will remove and create a sperate doc. Thank you for pointing this out.

In regards the Britannia V Southampton again I'll remove it. I literally c&p'd it from another WS. Will go bk to Newbie thread and get another WS example. Again, thanks for your input. 

Johnson2015

1505grandad said:

A heads-up  -  make sure that any c & p statements are applicable to your case. The following hopefully will not appear anyway in the exemplar you use but is just for an example of the pitfalls of blindly c & p (unless of course they are actually true for your case):-

" In support of that argument, I remind the court that I appealed and engaged with the Claimant at every step and they knew all along that the tariff has been paid. Not only could this claim have been avoided and the Claimant has no cause of action but it is also vexatious to pursue an inflated sum that includes double recovery. This is compounded by the witness altering the Statement of Truth (an attempt to avoid a personal duty) and attaching stock images of signs instead of actual images and a redacted 'landowner authority' document that could be from anyone."

Agreed! I missed this part when reading through. The first part is irrelevant but the 2nd part about stock images is true. 

Johnson2015

Back on it!

I have changed the V5 to state registered vehicle, I  have edited the C&P, and instead of  para's 20-25 I have used binned the overturned Southampton case and used the following from the exemplar WS from @baz417

Hidden Terms

20. The £100 penalty clause is positively buried in small print, as seen on the signs in evidence. The purported added (false) 'costs' are even more hidden and are also unspecified as a sum. Their (unlawful, due to the CRA Schedule 2 grey list of unfair terms) suggestion is that they can hide a vague sentence within a wordy sign, in the smallest possible print, then add whatever their trade body lets them, until the DLUHC bans it in 2024. And the driver has no idea about any risk nor even how much they might layer on top. None of this was agreed by me, let alone known or even seen as I stood at the machine, which their evidence shows doesn't warn me about a possible £100 charge. Court of Appeal authorities which are on all fours with a case involving a lack of ‘adequate notice’ of a charge, include:

(i) Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] 1 WLR 461 (‘red hand rule’) and

(ii) Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1970] EWCA Civ2both leading authorities confirming that a clause cannot be incorporated after a contract has been concluded; and
(iii)  Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest: CA 5 Apr 2000, where Ms Vine won because it was held that she had not seen the terms by which she would later be bound, due to "the absence of any notice on the wall opposite the parking space"

Johnson2015

I only have 1 case law as exhibit which is Jopson V Homeguard. Primacy of contract is my only angle. Upon reflection not sure forbidding signage is going to cut it with this one.

Trainerman

Johnson2015 said:

I only have 1 case law as exhibit which is Jopson V Homeguard. Primacy of contract is my only angle. Upon reflection not sure forbidding signage is going to cut it with this one.

I included forbidding signage as an alternative/second string for our upcoming hearings as you don't know which argument the Judge will like, as well as adding to the weight of evidence on your side.

Plenty of case law on that one too i.e UKPCM v Masterson, PCM v Bull etc

Coupon-mad

Doesn't look like you've actually used the exemplar WS by baz417 which has LOADS more than that little bit.

You seem to have missed the important stuff:

- All the latest about the DLUHC's Call for Evidence

- Excel v Wilkinson transcript

In fact that little snapshot you showed us is a TINY (almost insignificant) bit of baz's WS, was probably already in your defence, and doesn't need repeating if it was (that's a section that is in the Template Defence already).

Also we assume you are reading other threads and saw this important persuasive judgment to exhibit?
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6473149/major-judgement-where-judge-strike-out-the-claim-form/p1