Parking Charge, assumed to be the driver - Claim form received......

ChillyDragon51

Hi, I'm just reading through my statement for the Justice Committee.  Can I just ask, would it be appropriate to almost copy and paste some parts from other peoples submissions? I just feel that more highly educated people have worded it so much better than I could? What are your thoughts?

Coupon-mad

Yes you can if you wish. But do start and end in your own words and attach evidence of your case.

ChillyDragon51

Thanks Coupon-mad. I did both of those things and it has been submitted. And now to witness statements!
Thank you for your help.

ChillyDragon51

Is anyone keeping an eye on the statements submitted to the Justice Committee? I wonder how long it is before submissions show on the website? Just scanned through the statement from the Ministry of Justice..... definite rose-tinted glasses on that one....

Coupon-mad

ChillyDragon51 said:

Is anyone keeping an eye on the statements submitted to the Justice Committee? I wonder how long it is before submissions show on the website? Just scanned through the statement from the Ministry of Justice..... definite rose-tinted glasses on that one....

IPC:           

It's all very weak. Surely nobody believes this stuff? And please stop calling repeat victims 'repeat offenders' for the love of G.

I see they want to be able to farm CCJs out to their OWN industry HCEOs for cases over £200.

Well that would be EVERY PARKING CLAIM THAT GOES TO A DEFAULT CCJ so no wonder that's on their greedy wish list.

Coupon-mad

At least the IPC had a bit more to say than the one-track-minded BPA whose strings are clearly being pulled by DCB Legal and co!

BPA's one-point broken record:

OMG, they are actually expecting the CJC and MHCLG to buy the ludicrously impossible line that, if DRA fake fee 'extortion' was banned, the '3 million' cases per annum (their figure) that fester around in the current DRA cess-pool - being passed from pillar to post for years - will somehow ALL magically go to court!

Errrm... haven't you overlooked the blimming obvious reality, BPA?

1.  Human behaviour AND YOUR OWN STATS tell us that c70% of people who get PCNs at the original rate, pay (and all PCNs without fee extortion will be able to be paid at the original rate after the mandatory soft trace and reminder letters/LBC). So, assuming that in future, (in an ideal world with a determined and robust MHCLG breathing down their neck) PCNs are only/mainly going to be allowed to be issued for VALiD reasons and not as a result of concocted traps, that's 70% of that 3 million paid...happy operators / happier public...

and

2.  The vast majority of cases (in future) won't even need to go near the likes of DCB Legal. If the MHCLC get this decision right, bulk litigation on DCB Legal's abhorrent scale will be history in this rogue industry, BPA. So how exactly do you expect us to believe that these cases will all remain unpaid and will go to court?! 

and

3.  If PCNs are capped by the MHCLG at a lower level - and certainly nowhere near the eye-watering new London council penalty levels (engineered no doubt with the help of the BPA) then MORE PEOPLE WILL PAY THEM AND WON'T REPEAT THEIR BEHAVIOUR BECAUSE NOBODY LIKES PAYING MONEY OUT FOR NOTHING.

and

4.  We all know that it's the multiples of added £70 that FUND THE CURRENT LITIGIOUS CONSUMER ATTACK CULTURE. A neutral observer in Government might conclude from looking at Companies House records of DCB Legal's millions, that the 'money for old rope' that was handed to them on a plate by the BPA & IPC Code is surely likely to have been what enticed DCB Legal to set itself up from scratch in 2017 with the aim to become the 'top bulk litigator' in parking. And with the need to deal with this MARKET FAILURE in mind and to minimise consumer harm, here's the remedy: if you cut off the blood supply to leeches, they die.

Conclusion - oh dear, BPA, pull the other one:
Your scaremongering figures to the CJC are every bit as embarrassing as when you trotted out the hilarious "£19.5 billion loss to the High Streets" legendary trash that I reckon must have made the less naive staff at the DLUHC spit their lattes out laughing.

Now eclipsed by this comedy gold:

"we could see in excess of 2.2 MILLION CCJs issued"

                 

As usual, your figures are a joke.

Coupon-mad

Source here:

https://committees.parliament.uk/work/7972/work-of-the-county-court/publications/written-evidence/?page=1

Plenty there to read,

The Registry Trust in particular, make a lot of very sensible suggestions that would help Defendants to avoid CCJs.

fisherjim

.......if DRA fake fee 'extortion' was banned, the '3 million' cases per annum (their figure) that fester around in the current DRA cess-pool - being passed from pillar to post for years - will somehow ALL magically go to court!

So they are admitting that the added DRA fee is just a deterrent that someone pockets, not a real fee for anything actually done.

ChillyDragon51

Good morning.  Just wrapping up my WS.  I was planning on quoting a paragraph from Beavis but I've just happened across this......

"A witness statement must not contain legal arguments, such as references to case law and legislation.30 Dec 2024"

I thought it could be an exhibit?

Should I take it out and save it for the hearing?

ChillyDragon51

Actually though, it does also say this...

"They should be set out separately in the statement of case."

So do I not bullet point it, or refer to it, but just add it to my Exhibits list at the end, and just keep it in the separate sheet of paper?