Introducing Ws info not used in defence

Punkstig

I am at ws stage and having received gladstones ws new information has come to light that I'd like to use however as I was so focused on my initial reasoning for fighting the ticket I hadn't mentioned at my defence stage!

Without going into my defence at this point I have found out that contrary to bpa there is no sign at the entrance to the grounds stating that I'm entering private land with conditions attached, can this be added into my witness statement now or because I didn't mention it in my defence its not an available option to reinforce the ticket not being issued correctly?

Stig

KeithP

It's difficult to advise you without knowing exactly what is in your Defence and whether you would be able loosely translate any of your Defence to cover that signage point.

Does your Defence mention signs at all?

B789

You could just post your defence here, redacted of personal details and then you'd get some advice that is relevant.

I'm assuming you didn't use the Template defence from this forum. Which PPC and solicitors?

Punkstig

B789 said:

You could just post your defence here, redacted of personal details and then you'd get some advice that is relevant.

I'm assuming you didn't use the Template defence from this forum. Which PPC and solicitors?

I did use the template defence from the forum, but I'll be honest- despite hours, bordering days of reading, re-reading as much as possible I'm pretty much lost, my brain has melted and as such I'm going to state that I'm probably embarrassed by what comments will be made about it!

Private parking solutions london
Gladstones Solicitors

My situation is fairly unique, as in i havent been able to find anything similar on here and I know full well I just should have posted asking for advice ages ago, but I'm an idiot and as with everything put my head down and decided to struggle through!

I have until Tuesday the 2nd to file my ws.

Should I just post my defence?

Stig 

Le_Kirk

Punkstig said:

I did use the template defence from the forum, but I'll be honest- despite hours, bordering days of reading, re-reading as much as possible I'm pretty much lost, my brain has melted and as such I'm going to state that I'm probably embarrassed by what comments will be made about it!

Private parking solutions london
Gladstones Solicitors

My situation is fairly unique, as in i havent been able to find anything similar on here and I know full well I just should have posted asking for advice ages ago, but I'm an idiot and as with everything put my head down and decided to struggle through!

I have until Tuesday the 2nd to file my ws.

Should I just post my defence?

Stig 

Nothing can be fairly unique, it either is or isn't!  You are permitted to submit a supplementary WS but beware of engaging in WS ping-pong!  If you post your defence and it was based on the template, just post any paragraphs that you added or edited, we don't need to check @Coupon-mad's  work.  If you don't want to submit a supplementary WS, just raise it at the hearing that the claimant's WS is incorrect; don't use terms such as illegal or fraudulent!

Boat_to_Bolivia

Post your defence then the regulars will be better able to advise.


@Le_Kirk says, if you used the template here, just post the paragraphs you amended.

Coupon-mad

Short answer to your first question:

YES.

You can talk about non-prominent (and non-existent) signs because the CRA 2015 s71 sets a duty on the courts to consider that (i.e. clarity of terms and 'consumer notices') WHETHER A PARTY RAISES IT OR NOT.

Second answer is that the Template Defence DOES cover unclear signs and the applicability of the Consumer Rights Act in that regard.  Re-read your defence.  It already says all this.

The Template Defence is long for good reason.  It's not just padding.

Punkstig

Thanks for the quick replies.

3.   (Removed) Ltd were the legal owners of the vehicle in question.

4.   (Removed) Ltd held the only insurance policy on the vehicle in question which included ‘use for the policyholder's business‘

5.   (Removed) Ltd are an International courier and logistics solutions company.

6.   The Defendant was in full time employment with (removed )Ltd at the time the penalty charge notice was issued.

7.   The vehicle in question was parked in a dedicated loading bay whilst the driver collected a package described as a laptop from a (name and address removed) 

8.   Haide Paiva representing Private parking solutions (london) Ltd does not dispute loading was occurring at the time the pcn was issued.

9.   Haide Paiva representing private parking solutions (london) Ltd states ‘The term commercial vehicle is used to identify a vehicle which main purpose is to transport goods or materials rather than passengers‘

10.         The vehicle in question has been modified to maximise space available for the carriage of goods.

11.         The vehicle in questions main purpose is to transport goods being owned and insured by a courier company therefore falling within private parking solutions (london) Ltd requirements of what they determine to be a commercial vehicle.

12.         When loading and unloading the Defendant would initially look for single or double yellow road markings with no restrictions in place, Western gateway has red line markings denoting no stopping or waiting, the loading bay the vehicle in question  parked was the closest appropriate location to park correctly.

Background- I am a motorbike courier and have fought numerous council tickets successfully, this is a different beast.
My motorbike was in a loading bay, it was only after receiving the ticket that I'd been made aware of the sign stating for commercial vehicles only, however reading pps reply stating what they deem to be a commercial vehicle then my motorbike fits in that definition so I have been fighting this on that basis!

Coupon-mad

Is the above what you added to the Template Defence?

Punkstig

Coupon-mad said:

Is the above what you added to the Template Defence?

Yes- but not the 'Background' on paragraph, that was for the forum benefit

Punkstig

Coupon-mad said:

Short answer to your first question:

YES.

You can talk about non-prominent (and non-existent) signs because the CRA 2015 s71 sets a duty on the courts to consider that (i.e. clarity of terms and 'consumer notices') WHETHER A PARTY RAISES IT OR NOT.

Second answer is that the Template Defence DOES cover unclear signs and the applicability of the Consumer Rights Act in that regard.  Re-read your defence.  It already says all this.

The Template Defence is long for good reason.  It's not just padding.

I was genuinely thinking that was the case but wanted it confirmed before I started adding this new information into my defence!

In their ws pack they have included a map of signage, where they have noted the entrance sign it is literally a huge 'welcome to excel london' sign, nothing suggesting private land or restrictions in place.