Civil Enforcement Ltd claim form from back in summer of 2023

Coupon-mad

That's an old Dropbox link, as that WS talks about '24 months old' which I changed for you when I re-wrote that bit.

Do you have no Google Street view images to show how crap the signs were (lack of entrance sign in that year)?  That is what we always suggest.  Otherwise the Judge will only have their photos to go on.

Do you not have their WS yet? I assume not, as your WS has no section responding to theirs nor exposing any holes in their evidence.

womble94

Coupon-mad said:

That's an old Dropbox link, as that WS talks about '24 months old' which I changed for you when I re-wrote that bit.

Do you have no Google Street view images to show how crap the signs were (lack of entrance sign in that year)?  That is what we always suggest.  Otherwise the Judge will only have their photos to go on.

Do you not have their WS yet? I assume not, as your WS has no section responding to theirs nor exposing any holes in their evidence.

yes that dropbox link is old, but the exhibits haven't changed, I've not bothered updating the dropbox with the latest WS as you mentioned it would be better to copy and paste rather than send the link

I wrote that the PoC was insufficient as the location was not identified - if I were then to go and put pictures / information of the place, will I not get pulled up on this?

womble94

Coupon-mad said:

You need to reference it then, because your WS gives no clue that Akande is also in Exhibit 1.  Yes, reference exhibit 1 at the end of para 10.

Make it simple for the Judge to see what is what.

This has been done now.

Coupon-mad

womble94 said:

Coupon-mad said:

That's an old Dropbox link, as that WS talks about '24 months old' which I changed for you when I re-wrote that bit.

Do you have no Google Street view images to show how crap the signs were (lack of entrance sign in that year)?  That is what we always suggest.  Otherwise the Judge will only have their photos to go on.

Do you not have their WS yet? I assume not, as your WS has no section responding to theirs nor exposing any holes in their evidence.

yes that dropbox link is old, but the exhibits haven't changed, I've not bothered updating the dropbox with the latest WS as you mentioned it would be better to copy and paste rather than send the link

I wrote that the PoC was insufficient as the location was not identified - if I were then to go and put pictures / information of the place, will I not get pulled up on this?

Nope.

After all, your WS already admits to driving so you obviously recognise the place!

Don't ever let the C have the only photos! This is how people occasionally lose, because the Judge only has one set of photos (undated close ups) making it look like the signs are clear. And nothing from you to counter it.

Signage is key in (almost) every parking case. Take that evidence really seriously.

womble94

ok noted. Will any of these be ok to use? The first pic the entrance which is 4 months after the PCN and the 2nd pic is inside the car park a month after the PCN

Coupon-mad

First one - don't use it. Surely there's an earlier entrance pic on GSV? Use the arrow to change the date (can't be done on a phone, AFAIK).

Second one looks good! Looks like the pale blue & white t&cs sign is so faded as to have lost all meaning in the lower half of the sign, which is where the £100 'contract' would have been hidden in tiny font!

Not there, is it?! No agreement to pay £100 then. No contract. No claim.

womble94

The entrance looks basically the same on the different dates chosen:

First one in this post is feb 2023 and then 2nd one is aug 2021 (a year before the PCN - so assuming this cannot be used, if it's ok)

Coupon-mad

I would ONLY use the faded one - the t&cs sign inside - making sure your exhibit includes the date of image (don't crop it off).

What do their WS pics look like?  Dated?

womble94

Coupon-mad said:

I would ONLY use the faded one - the t&cs sign inside - making sure your exhibit includes the date of image (don't crop it off).

What do their WS pics look like?  Dated?

ok will do, just going to update the exhibits now with the faded sign.

I haven't seen their WS yet. They have until 15th Aug to pay the court trial fee

womble94

shall I reference the picture on my para 8 and add a sentence about the sign being faded, or do a totally new paragraph?

8. I saw no parking signs and certainly did not agree to pay £100.  Let alone the inflated sum of £170 which is unexplained and cannot have been the PCN sum. Any such terms or penalty warnings were either not there, not prominently displayed and/or buried on some unintelligible sign in minuscule text, incapable of binding a driver. The Claimant is put to strict proof of their alleged contract, if the case is not struck out due to the Chan appeal case which was about the exact same POC and same Claimant.