Euro Parking COURT DATE despite following advice. HELP!!

beaniemans

My defence is that the driver was legitimately using the petrol stations services. On the photo's provided by the petrol station the car is parked right next to the air machine which was used to top up a slow air leak in the rear tyre of the vehicle. The car was only on the forecourt for 3 minutes. It is insinuated that the driver parked and left the petrol stations grounds, contrary to the signage conditions. There is nothing on the signage which stipulates how long you can be off the grounds which suggests if you use the garage but step over the boundary for even a second that you owe £100. There are pictures of the driver walking towards the boundary and coming from the boundary but not over the boundary and off the premises.
As you'll see in the witness statement from Gladstones above there is reference to the fact that the initial defence was formed using advice from this site and that the defendant "wouldn't understand the complexities of all the references to the Civil Procedure Rules".
I'm hoping people on here could kindly direct as what the best way to defend this would now be?

Thanks in advance 

beaniemans

Thanks for your quick response Carl1980

surreyman_2

The writer of this witness statement sounds like a right patronising sh1tbag. Have you admitted to being the driver? Do the photo(s) show the driver standing inside the boundary (ie  still on the service station forecourt) or outside the boundary (ie off the service station’s property)? You just said “near” the boundary.

beaniemans

Thanks Surreyman. I haven't admitted being the driver. I have used the term "the driver" throughout. 

The pics show the driver very close to the boundary - approx 1 foot away - with back to camera as if about to step off and another showing driver inside the boundary facing the camera as if coming back on to the garage forecourt. No pics of the driver off the premises. I now know what the boundary is as they sent a birds-eye-view pic of the premises with the boundary highlighted in red. 

Gr1pr

Your defence has already been filed and logged 

You are now drafting your Witness Statement,  not your defence   ! 

Most sites that I know do not have clear boundaries,  why would they  ?

Signage and boundaries have to be crystal clear,  as in Lord Dennings red hand rule,  I doubt that the boundaries were very clear on a petrol station,  so it reminds me of the bring your toothbrush case a decade ago 

So your Witness Statement will centre on the legitimate reason for being there , that no boundaries were noticed, that the visit was only for a few minutes etc

The person who issued that WS above wasn't there, not a Witness to any of the incident , just interpreting pictures and making assumptions 

James_Poisson

If you never left site you never left site.

If you were using the air machine you were a customer and I assume there is a charge for using this?

Three minutes, if the air line was used does not in my view give any time for wandering off site for any purpose at all anyway.

If the boundary isn't mapped or specified you would have no idea if your wanderings were on site or off site.

If their photos just show someone somewhere at the site it doesn't show them crossing their imagined un specified boundary.

As a member of the public that isn't used to court proceedings using the internet to do research is to be applauded as you were trying to gather information and facts to help you and the court in an endeavour to get things right and also not waste the courts time as best you could.

The above is stated ironically considering the claimant is a company that issues many of these claims a year who with their experience have reverted to using a well known template rebuttal.

surreyman_2

If their case is based on what they claim is photographic evidence, then your defence would appear to be that they haven’t provided any photographic evidence of the driver leaving the premises. From what you’ve said, the photos show the driver only standing or walking near the boundary, while remaining on the service station forecourt. It sounds as though there is no photographic evidence that the driver ever crossed the boundary and went off the forecourt. Have you also tried complaining to the retail company that owns the service station (not the oil company that provides the fuel, by the way)? You could try something along the lines of “I’m appalled at how you’ve treated a loyal customer who visited your premises to purchase your services / the parking management company have claimed to have photographic evidence of the driver leaving the premises but the photos they’ve submitted show no such thing”, etc, etc.

surreyman_2

Just seen this thread (link below). This could be useful to you. Check whether the individual person who signed the witness statement is authorised to conduct litigation… https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6629609/unqualified-staff-at-a-law-firm-are-not-allowed-to-conduct-litigation#latest

Car1980

beaniemans said:

My defence is that the driver was legitimately using the petrol stations services. On the photo's provided by the petrol station the car is parked right next to the air machine which was used to top up a slow air leak in the rear tyre of the vehicle. The car was only on the forecourt for 3 minutes. It is insinuated that the driver parked and left the petrol stations grounds, contrary to the signage conditions. There is nothing on the signage which stipulates how long you can be off the grounds which suggests if you use the garage but step over the boundary for even a second that you owe £100. There are pictures of the driver walking towards the boundary and coming from the boundary but not over the boundary and off the premises.
As you'll see in the witness statement from Gladstones above there is reference to the fact that the initial defence was formed using advice from this site and that the defendant "wouldn't understand the complexities of all the references to the Civil Procedure Rules".
I'm hoping people on here could kindly direct as what the best way to defend this would now be?

Thanks in advance 

Ok, so let them persuade the judge and show their evidence. What you say in the WS is taken as gospel truth, so it's 100% up to them to disprove you. The onus is on them to make their claim.

I'd be pretty peeved if it had got this far and the driver hadn't left the premises, so I'd be sticking some emotion and fury in there. Defences are dispassionate; witness statement don't have to be as so. 

I'd be keeping it very short as anything else is pretty moot, although maybe do a couple of hypothetical paragraphs ie. "even if the driver did leave the premises, the Claimant's signage is too far from the boundary, boundary is not demarcated, nothing on the tarmac, no signage at the exit point, exit point is clearly an exit path so why isn't it closed off if it's a £100 sting operation, if the landowner really wanted to stop people leaving why is he only relying on a far away sign rather than putting up a fence etc."

But, regarding drivers you've reached a decision point:

1. You are the defendant, keeper but not the driver. 

"The driver tells me they did not leave the site and the claimant must disprove what they have told me".

2. You are the defendant, keeper but not the driver and you want to name them.

"The driver is Jane Jones and she provides her own witness statement in addition to mine".

3. You are the defendant, keeper and the driver. 
"I did not leave the site and the claimant must disprove my assertion".

Bear in mind that honesty is usually the best policy and that keeping driver ID secret at WS stage is only relevant in a select few circumstances. Option 1 may weaken your case as it is hearsay evidence.

beaniemans

Thank you all for your help here. It has been really helpful and I now feel confident I can defend this.

There is no proof I went off premises. 

Furthermore there is nothing to clearly demark the premises boundary anyway. - Interestingly as part of their claim I have been sent an aerial view of the garage with a bright red line on it to show where the boundary is. Clearly not obvious at ground level.

The Denning's Red Hand Rule is helpful here as it states that contract conditions " particularly onerous or unusual contract terms" be given more conspicuous notice. In this case as you say there should be clear marking of the boundary and clear signage at the point of the boundary to suggest anyone leaving it may incur £100 charge.