2x Claim Form from CPS

clowncake

Coupon-mad said:

I think look at other recent WS structure by searching and consider the recommended exhibits list that is provided in the second post of the NEWBIES thread.

Then put in your facts and show us.

Thank you, so far this is what I got drafted up.

Coupon-mad

Your WS is good. Comments:

You talk about their WS but you haven't pointed out that their witness isn't a witness at all, just an employee of the third party legal firm who will not even attend the hearing and has never been to the car park. Everything in it is hearsay and the Claimant has failed to comply with the hearing order which requires WS from 'the parties'.

I assume I'm right with that?

And your WS numbering jumps from para 8 to 12.

Remove paras 19 and 20 to shorten it, as the DLUHC stuff is old news.

clowncake

Coupon-mad said:

Your WS is good. Comments:

You talk about their WS but you haven't pointed out that their witness isn't a witness at all, just an employee of the third party legal firm who will not even attend the hearing and has never been to the car park. Everything in it is hearsay and the Claimant has failed to comply with the hearing order which requires WS from 'the parties'.

I assume I'm right with that?

And your WS numbering jumps from para 8 to 12.

Remove paras 19 and 20 to shorten it, as the DLUHC stuff is old news.

Okay Great, 

I fixed the numbering jumps and added Paragraph 8 talking about the hearsay information from them.

I was also thinking about adding an extra Exhibit which shows the unreserved space that I left the car  in however there is now a clear ish sign with the terms which wasn't there when I parked but I dont have anything to prove that.

Would showing that benefit me regardless as im showing that I wasn't parked in a reserved bay and was truly out of the way of everyone?

Coupon-mad

Surely they've provided a picture or are they only relying on in/out ANPR?

clowncake

Nope, ANPR in and out only. 

This is what they provided in their WS. 

Coupon-mad

So where is their evidence of the car in an area with a sign?

Looks like the two corner areas on the right of the aerial image have no yellow square at all in the bays there.

Even if there was a sign, where's the proof?

Where is the image of whatever was in the reserved bay that day?

Where is the proof of that supposed entry sign? It's not in the images of your car. Can you find an image on Google StreetView? Use that to prove no prominent sign on approach.

How long were you there?

Coupon-mad

clowncake said:

I found useful evidence in GSV for you from 2023 which probably trumps their pics:

View as you arrive:



In these bays on your far left as you arrive:
No signs except a clamping one (which was banned and became a criminal offence in 2012!) 

The only sign on a building that might have once had contractual terms but is poorly maintained, broken, twice the height of a car and unreadable, is this one:

clowncake

Coupon-mad said:

So where is their evidence of the car in an area with a sign?

Looks like the two corner areas on the right of the aerial image have no yellow square at all in the bays there.

Even if there was a sign, where's the proof?

Where is the image of whatever was in the reserved bay that day?

Where is the proof of that supposed entry sign? It's not in the images of your car. Can you find an image on Google StreetView? Use that to prove no prominent sign on approach.

How long were you there?

They only got me on the ANPR, going in and out.

Yeah there is no actual proof from them of the signs being there in their WS, just a mock up of their signs and where they apparently placed them. 

No image of what was in the reserved bays that day, I wasn't even in one of them either.

No concrete proof of their supposed entry sign, my Exhibit 04 shows that there is lack of signage when you enter from where I took the photo. The only entry sign that could give you a clue that terms apply is literally obstructed by a wheelie bin.

ANPR clocked me going in at 20:03 and leaving at 21:11.

Thank you for getting me the extra GSV images too, Should I use them alongside my images or replace them?

Yours clearly show that there is literally nothing that would even resamble a contract but im afraid that they could argue that they installed them later as my alleged offence is from 2024.

Coupon-mad

Should I use them alongside my images or replace them?

Use it all but not your recent pic with the new sign because that wasn't there.

Do not provide any photos of what it looks like now.

Yours clearly show that there is literally nothing that would even resemble a contract but I'm afraid that they could argue that they installed them later as my alleged offence is from 2024.

No they can't because they've produced no evidence! I predict ten minutes max at the hearing and you won't have to utter a word because the judge will chuck the case out for lack of ANY evidence of prominent signage! 

clowncake

Coupon-mad said:

Should I use them alongside my images or replace them?

Use it all but not your recent pic with the new sign because that wasn't there.

Do not provide any photos of what it looks like now.

Yours clearly show that there is literally nothing that would even resemble a contract but I'm afraid that they could argue that they installed them later as my alleged offence is from 2024.

No they can't because they've produced no evidence! I predict ten minutes max at the hearing and you won't have to utter a word because the judge will chuck the case out for lack of ANY evidence of prominent signage! 

Got it, ill onlyuse  the one i called "Confusing Signage" and the entrance which doesn't show a single sign and rest will be the GSV images.

I also just read through the whole Witness Statement to make sure that im not missing anything and found out that they will not even attend the hearing, this feels like the worst and most embarassing effort of trying to get some money out of someone.