Update Judgement - Both struck out (29th Feb) - Victoria Quays - Sheffield, S2 5SY

Anto_28

I've received this from my employer too on the back of me asking them for the 29th Feb off work due to appearing in court. (they questioned me as to whether it would affect my employment, which it doesn't). Is it of any use to us in this case?
   

Fruitcake

You should include all evidence as numbered exhibits that will help your case.

Anto_28

Fruitcake said:

You should include all evidence as numbered exhibits that will help your case.

I have Exhibits AH01 through to 13, I didn't add them to my post as not sure if needed to show, I can upload them if its advised to have them checked over too.

Coupon-mad

Just a list of them (your contents page) will do for us to review.

Johnersh

I really would stick to facts not legal argument. The statement will be quite lengthy enough with exhibits. This will make it punchier. The legal argument can go in a skelly served directly before the hearing.

I would avoid statements like "this disproves".... It is for the court to make findings of fact. The defendant's account might instead be referred to as "inconsistent" or the defence 'appears to contain an error because..' You guide the court to the conclusion, you don't tell them what to do/think.

Also, you don't refer to settlement offers at this point.

You may have a different view, but Probably no need to attach all correspondence. Unless directly referring to the content don't exhibit letters. You're the claimant - you can stick them in the trial bundle so the judge sees them. 13 exhibits will be a pain to flip through.

Anto_28

Johnersh said:

I really would stick to facts not legal argument. The statement will be quite lengthy enough with exhibits. This will make it punchier. The legal argument can go in a smelly served directly before the hearing.

I would avoid statements like "this disproves".... It is for the court to make findings of fact. The defendant's account might be inconsistent or the defence 'appears to contain an error because..'

Thanks for the pointers i’ll amend the draft.

So basically just state the facts and things like the KADOE GDPR Breach section submitted later but just before hearing?

Johnersh

A witness statement should always be factual only.

 If the defendant serves a generic document chock full of legal argument by a paralegal and no real fact (because the parking attendant hasn't done a statement) then there's good argument to exclude it. That's why you asked for evidence from the traffic operative, after all...

 That won't fly if your own statement is chock full of legal points. See, for example, JD Wetherspoon v Harris (but there are loads of cases on the point)

Anto_28

Just read the judgement from above. How very interesting. I'm assuming the WS will be filed by Mark Robinson and not Scott Taylor, so if this is the case (and we'll know 14 days before the hearing), we may have some ammo to fire at the hearing as Mark can't be witness.

I've rejigged my WS. Much simpler now.

I've created a new Doc and bundled the rest into there named: Trial Bundle.doc (for now)

Index
EXHIBIT AH01 – Permit in Defendant’s PCN photo along with enhanced photo
EXHIBIT AH02 – Privacy notice on car
EXHIBIT AH03 – SAR note “as I was walking away”
EXHIBIT AH04 – SAR DVLA Import
EXHIBIT AH05 – KADOE Rules
EXHIBIT AH06 – Defendant internally discussing the permit
EXHIBIT AH07 – Dismissive LBA response
EXHIBIT AH08 – Written admission
EXHIBIT AH09 – Beavis paragraphs

WS

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT SHEFFIELD                                  Claim No. xxxxxxx

BETWEEN

 

xxxxxxxxxx

Claimant

- and -

 

xxxxxxxxxx

Defendant

 

 

WITNESS STATEMENT OF CLAIMANT

 

 

1.      I am xxxxxxxx of xxxxxxxxxxxx, and I am the Claimant who brought forth this claim and I am the Defendant against whom a part 20 counter 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 particulars of claim and defence are repeated and I will say as follows:

Facts and Sequence of events

3.      On the 15th June 2023 I parked my vehicle outside my place of work at the Victoria Quays Car Park, an action I have done on a regular basis for the 5 years I have been employed by my current employer.

4.      When exiting the vehicle to remove my dog from the rear seats, I left my parking permit on the armrest of the vehicle. While this was not the usual position for the permit, the permit was still clearly visible when viewing the car from the front through the front windscreen.

5.      During this entire period, I had not previously received any Parking Charge Notices (‘PCNs’) from the Defendant.

6.      At 14:55 on the day stated above, Mr Scott Taylor, a patrol officer of the Defendant was seen taking photos of my vehicle by one of my work colleagues. I went to speak to the patrol officer immediately.

7.      We walked back to my car together as by the time I made it out the building he had already began walking away from my vehicle in the direction towards the exit of my workplace. Speaking to the patrol officer, I made him aware of the valid parking permit that was on display inside my vehicle that he had missed on first inspection.

8.      The evidence in Exhibit AH01 is presented showing the permit on display inside the front windscreen in the Defendant’s own evidence photos put before the court.

9.      As these photos were taken before I spoke to patrol office and were reproduced for the issuance of the PCN; the Defendant’s defence appears to contain an error because the Defendant speculatively claim that the permit was placed by me retrospectively.

10.   The patrol officer informed me that due to the details being sent to the Defendant already, I should contact the Defendant to have the ticket cancelled. At this point, only a Privacy Notice had been issued (Exhibit AH02), so I assumed when he mentioned the ticket being cancelled, he meant to avoid a PCN being issued at all. We stood together as the patrol officer took further evidence photographs. He told me that these would be provided to the Defendant.

11.   8 minutes after sending the initial vehicle details to the Defendant, the patrol officer sent an update to the Defendant making them aware there was a parking permit as evidenced in Exhibit AH03. The Defendant’s account of events appear to be inconsistent with this evidence where the defence states that details of the permit were only provided on the 16th July 2023.

12.   During this time, I used the contact form on the Defendant’s website to make them aware of the contact I had with Mr Taylor. Unfortunately, I didn’t screen record myself doing this action and the website gives no automated email response to give website users proof this action was undertaken, therefore the Defendant denies this contact happened.

13.   5 days after the alleged contravention, the Defendant used my vehicles Vehicle Registration Mark via DVLA KADOE to obtain my personal details as evidenced in Exhibit AH04.

14.   The Defendant who had obtained my details against KADOE rules (Exhibit AH05), then chose to issue a PCN to me on 21st June 2023, further breaching the GDPR by processing my personal data.

15.   I appealed the PCN on the 28th June 2023.

16.   The Defendant responded to the appeal on the 5th July 2023 asking for a copy of the permit to be sent to them.

17.   I complied with the request, sending a copy of the permit the very same day.

18.   On the 17th July 2023, the Defendant wrote to the Claimant informing him that the appeal had been rejected.

19.   On the 31st July I made a SAR to the Defendant attempting to have more information disclosed to me surrounding the issuance of the PCN.

20.   Amongst the information received on the 31st August 2023 I found instances of the permit being discussed internally by the Defendant’s staff, both before the PCN was issued, and before they ever went to the patrol officer to obtain the photo he had taken as evidenced in Exhibit AH06. The Defendant’s account of events also appear to be inconsistent with this evidence as the defence states that details of the permit were only provided on the 16th July 2023.

21.   I have been steadfast in my refusal to pay the charge levied by the defendant. Further demands were issued by the Defendant on 17th August 2023 (DEMAND FOR PAYMENT) and 4th September 2023 (FINAL DEMAND).

22.   A letter before claim was issued by the Defendant to me on the 14th September 2023.

23.   I had extensive communications with the Defendant to try resolve the situation which included visiting their offices to speak to them personally. I spoke with a gentleman and handed him a letter to pass on to the legal department, all of this came to no avail with the Defendant being dismissive and refusing to enter any discussions. This closed book attitude being something I came up against on many occasions with multiple correspondence making me aware the Defendant had no intention of listening to any further discussions around the PCN.

24.   I issued my own letter before action on the 2nd October 2023 giving the Defendant 14 days to acknowledge and apologise for the GDPR breaches, to cancel the PCN and offering them a settlement to pay a reduced sum of compensation for the GDPR breaches. This was responded to with a single line dismissive response as evidenced in Exhibit AH07.

25.   On the 25th Oct 2023 I received a Notice of Instruction from ELMS Legal. The Defendant has therefore shared my personal data with a third party company, which is a further breach of the GDPR and DPA 2018. This infuriated me, and I sought legal advice.

26.   During this time, I also engaged in communications with ELMS Legal to dispute the charge relaying the information I had sent to the Defendant. During the communications, I received a written admission that the Defendant knew the permit was in the car as evidenced by Exhibit AH08. I was also told if I wanted to dispute the matter I could do so in the court proceeding they would shortly commence.

27.   On the 30th October 2023 (16 days after the deadline outlined on the letter before action to the defendant and 5 days after receiving the Notice of Instruction from ELM Legal), I issued a claim against the Defendant using MCOL taking the positive action needed to bring an end the situation where I believed the defendant was misusing my personal data for profit.

Statement of truth

I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

Coupon-mad

I think 12 could be stronger.  It almost sounds at the end, like you are accepting that the Defendant denies the webform discussion ever happened.

They must have a record, you'd think. I'm not sure you need to acknowledge their flat denial.  You know it happened!

I don't like the phrase 'patrol officer' which gives a ticket-happy / incentivised Excel employee a level of authority that notorious ex-clamper firm don't deserve.  Maybe just 'employee'?

I have read the advice from @Johnersh with interest.  Just wondering whether you will be also filing & serving a skeleton argument explaining the basis of claim and laws & case law relied upon for seeking redress?  Cases like this that I've seen before had a skelly to bring in the DPA 2018, Vidal Hall v Google, Simon Clay v CEL, etc.

@bargepole handled that last one (which, like yours, was a claim not a counterclaim and it was against a parking firm for abusing DVLA data without reasonable cause).  He might stop by with the skelly used successfully in Clay. 

Did you say you have paid the hearing fee?

Anto_28

Coupon-mad said:

I have read the advice from @Johnersh with interest.  Just wondering whether you will be also filing & serving a skeleton argument explaining the basis of claim and laws & case law relied upon for seeking redress?  Cases like this that I've seen before had a skelly to bring in the DPA 2018, Vidal Hall v Google, Simon Clay v CEL, etc.

Did you say you have paid the hearing fee?

re Johnersh comment, I found it interesting too as all the WS’s I’d read on here before embarking on this claim had all the law spiel/cases to be relied on in the WS.

Did some resesrch on Trial Bundles and found while they were uncommon on the Small Claims Track they can be used.


Paid the hearing fee already 👍🏻