Claim Form from DCL legal for multiple tickets - Advice needed please

Coupon-mad

That link requires access. Better not to show a link at all. You'll get more views if you copy & paste your WS in a few replies here (redacted of data).

loves2park

Oh ok no problem @Coupon-mad , thanks for pointing that. Please find the witness statement below: I have left out Exhibits to save space -

loves2park

Continuation

loves2park

final part

Coupon-mad

Are you retired or not working, so not claiming for loss of leave/salary? If you can claim that, add £95 ordinary costs for loss of leave.

Not sure that you can necessarily use Chan & Akande in a DCB Legal claim unless the POC didn't specify the alleged breach.

Please show us the POC from the claim form so we can be sure what you're responding to.

Replace the word 'offences' in para 8 and 9 with 'parking events'.

I think you can add more legal argument to the point you make about the banner. Does it look like this (can you show a full version please)? This one comes from this thread:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81379325/#Comment_81379325



I think you should make the point that Bay Sentry are not mentioned on that banner, nor at or adjacent to the iPads. The offer of 3 hours parking is different and clearly made only by PureGym and there are no caveats. No agreement to pay £100 if you fail to use the iPad, make a typo or if the iPad thingy fails to save the VRM properly. Even if there were such onerous terms on that banner, the offer about parking when using this gym is clearly from Puregym (at the top of the banner). The parking contract you are accepting on each attendance is with Puregym. It's a massive banner advert and forms an alternative contract. The parties are you and PureGym only. Bay Sentry are a stranger to the 3 hours free offer that you accepted every time you went there and Bay Sentry can't sue over it.

1505grandad

Is page 4 missing re paras 17 - 23?

Are you repeating same paras that were included in the Defence?

Also is the name of the claimant on heading and in the WS body the same style as is stated on the claim form?

loves2park

@Coupon-mad Thanks for the reply

I am off work the day of the court case coincidentally

Here are the POC

I did use Chan in the initial defense. 

Wording in para 8&9 has been updated

This is the pure gym sign in exhibit 2.

Great thanks I will elaborate on this!

loves2park

@1505grandad

Sorry i did miss out page 4, that has now been updated.

Yes I am repeating a number of paragraphs from the defense as I saw that was happening in some previous witness statements. Paragraphs 7-18 are unique to the WS.

Yep the Claimant name is the same as the Claim Form

1505grandad

"Yes I am repeating a number of paragraphs from the defense as I saw that was happening in some previous witness statements"

See the following post re repeating Defence blurb:-

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81393522/#Comment_81393522

"Yep the Claimant name is the same as the Claim Form"

Their website style the name as "BaySentry Solutions Ltd"  -  which is same as in your para 13.
However the WS heading states "Baysentry Solutions Ltd
Hence my query re the actual claim form style.

Coupon-mad

Chan isn't relevant to your case.

Copy the wording you find about the PureGym banner from a case I replied on just days ago.  These cases are easy because the banner offers the 3 hours, not the scammer!