IMPORTANT REMINDER: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information. If you are uploading images, please take extra care that you have redacted all personal information.

county claim form vehicle control services ltd

191012141518

Replies

  • edited 21 July 2021 at 6:12PM
    Snakes_BellySnakes_Belly Forumite
    3K Posts
    1,000 Posts Fourth Anniversary Photogenic Name Dropper
    ✭✭✭✭
    edited 21 July 2021 at 6:12PM
    Excel and VCS are very careless with the documents that you send them. They said that there were pages missing in my defence which I know that they were not. I ckecked everything very carefully.

    I think that they have in the past sent documents to the wrong defendants. This is typical of the way they operate. 

    Nolite te bast--des carborundorum.
  • edited 21 July 2021 at 6:18PM
    Coupon-madCoupon-mad
    105.6K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    ✭✭✭✭✭✭
    edited 21 July 2021 at 6:18PM
    Sorry I couldn't resist it!  Here's more advice:

    VCS is not the Claimant's full name (from the claim form).

    (the transcript of which is exhibit XX-04).
    It isn't 04 because you've already got one numbered 04, higher up.  And have you changed XX to your initials, throughout?  Also, the transcript used by @jrhys is a blurred version that shows Ms Wilkinson's full name.  We don't use that one.  The correct one is in the thread I started about the Recorder Cohen QC appeal decision, a new transcript (and wording) that you also need to add along with replacing that Wilkinson transcript with the more readable copy.

    At #15, surely they didn't call theirs a 'Customer License Agreement’ given they are not American and the word 'licence' isn't spelt with an 's' here (except as a verb).

    Finally, the sequence of events needs an 's' on the end and you haven't said whether you paid and displayed, or not, and what the PCN was apparently issued for. 

    If it's overstaying paid-for time, or staying a few minutes over the free parking time, you need to mention this:

    The needs of the passengers were such that they met the definition of disability in the Equality Act 2010 and as such, an arbitrary free parking time limit cannot be inflexibly applied.  This is true even in cases where the service provider did not know about the needs of individual consumers, given the Service Provider has a duty (set out in the Act and also forming a duty prescribed in the statutory EHRC Equality Act Code of Practice - 'CoP' - for Service Providers - exhibit xx*) to consider the needs of the disabled population 'at large'.  Such discrimination falls under indirect discrimination and there is no justification that the Claimant 'didn't know' because clearly this retail park is a location where a typical 10% of visitors would be deemed disabled.  Arrangements and instructions must be made and advertised on signage to allow extra time for visitors with protected characteristics.  This has been tested against Local Authorities and both Norwich and Lincoln Councils had to change their policies to openly offer an extra hour per hour paid-for, to the disabled population at large (see exhibit xx**).  NB: the Blue Badge scheme is not the only indicator of disability need on private land, so whilst that legal challenge was specific to that scheme, it is fully applicable in a wider sense to people with a relevant need, on private land (Blue Badge of not).  Extra time is a right and is easily arranged in advance as a 'reasonable adjustment' offered by a professional car park provider that pays due regard to the Equality Act 2010 and the EHRC CoP, which even has a worked example of the duty not to enforce inflexible time limits (a search of that CoP for the word 'tours' finds that example of discrimination).

    * https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/servicescode_0.pdf

    ** https://www.edp24.co.uk/news/disabled-campaigners-claim-norwich-parking-victory-464282

    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
    CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
    Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
  • edited 21 July 2021 at 6:23PM
    Coupon-madCoupon-mad
    105.6K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    ✭✭✭✭✭✭
    edited 21 July 2021 at 6:23PM
    Even better, they DID know because you told us:

     i appealed and it failed 

    So put that in as well!

    The Claimant knew about the passengers' protected characteristics and reason for the overstay and did nothing, which is a failure to make reasonable adjustments, and illegal conduct.  I appealed and (explain what you said and that they refused it with a template reply, and offered the unwinnable (trade body run) 'kangaroo court' IAS that allows just 4% of appeals).

    Go into some detail about when you appealed and how you tried hard to resolve the issue out of court, so this should never have come this far.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
    CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
    Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
  • Le_KirkLe_Kirk Forumite
    17.8K Posts
    Eighth Anniversary 10,000 Posts Photogenic Name Dropper
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    The photograph’s photographs that the claimant has provided are taken from the point of view of a pedestrian  who is standing at the other side of the road, In any case the signage is inadequate as it is so poorly sited and that it cannot be really be said that it is has been brought to the attention of the drivers of vehicles entering the site.  the The signs were also obscured by a tree. (exhibit XX-02)

    Maybe adjust as shown.  Photographs does not need a possessive apostrophe!

  • edited 22 July 2021 at 1:36PM
    merits28merits28 Forumite
    95 Posts
    10 Posts Name Dropper
    edited 22 July 2021 at 1:36PM

    Claim No; Name; (Defendant) Hearing Date:

    • IN THE COUNTY COURT

       

       

      Between

      VEHICLE CONTROL SERVICES LIMITED

      (Claimant) 

      -and -  

      NAME

      (Defendants)

    WITNESS STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT

      1. I am <NAME> of <ADDRESS>, and I am the Defendant against whom this claim is made. The facts are true to the best of my belief and my account has been prepared based upon my own knowledge.  2. In my statement I shall refer to exhibits within the evidence supplied with this statement, referring to page and reference numbers where appropriate. My defence is repeated and I will say as follows: SIGNAGE: 3.The approach to the entrance of the car park is by turning sharply left from Eyre Street, across a busy pedestrian walkway and cycleway (exhibit JO- 01). There are double yellow lines to this junction where stopping would be impossible, and would also block the pedestrian and cycle crossing. The only safe way to view the car park terms and conditions is by entering the car park. 4.  The sign age at the entrance to the car park is especially unclear ” as it is situated on the left hand side at an angle and can not be seen from the inside of a vehicle. The photographs that the claimant has provided are taken from the point of view of a pedestrian who is standing at the other side of the road ,In any case the signage is inadequate as it is so poorly sited and that it cannot really be said that it has been brought to the attention of the drivers of vehicles entering the site.  The signs were also obscured by a tree. (exhibit JO-02)   SEQUENCE OF EVENTS 5.on that day I parked as me and my 3 children and a friend who came to visit from Africa went for shopping at the moor markets and while were going around she took ill and started vomiting and having episodes due to long term chronic health condition. The sick passenger needed painkillers and she was slow moving , as this was during covid 19 and I was pregnant and was also diagnose with over-active thyroid ( graves disease) I was on medications including steroids . MY steroids treatment card and steroids emergency card with endocrinology letters (exhibit JO-03) Also one of my 3 young daughters has sickle cell and on medications. My daughters hospital letters and medications ( exhibit JO-04) The passenger has unfortunately pass away due to covid .

    6.This parking was an hour free parking and I have overstay with some minutes, I Have appealed and my appeal was denied with a template letter without taking into consideration the sick occupants in the vehicle who had health challenges and the medical emergency that delay my return to the car, vehicle control services sent me a form to fill out with my income, I immediately contacted them, telling them I have no income, I am pregnant and I have health issues and one of my daughters have health issues so we were asked by the government to shield so we had our food and medications delivered to our home, but vehicle control services said I need to go out and post back the form or get someone to come to my house to help me post the form when no one was allowed into my house. I did try hard to resolve the issue out of court , I even offered a payments of £10 monthly when I spoke with them over the phone, they refused and instead wanted me to go against the covid rules and go out or let someone into my house to get the expenses form back to them. NHS stay at home at all times letter (exhibit JO-04) . The Claimant knew about the passengers' protected characteristics and reason for the overstay and did nothing, which is a failure to make reasonable adjustments, and illegal conduct.



    7.The needs of the passengers were such that they met the definition of disability in the Equality Act 2010 and as such, an arbitrary free parking time limit cannot be inflexibly applied.  This is true even in cases where the service provider did not know about the needs of individual consumers, given the Service Provider has a duty (set out in the Act and also forming a duty prescribed in the statutory EHRC Equality Act Code of Practice - 'CoP' - for Service Providers - exhibit JO-05) to consider the needs of the disabled population 'at large'.  Such discrimination falls under indirect discrimination and there is no justification that the Claimant 'didn't know' because clearly this retail park is a location where a typical 10% of visitors would be deemed disabled.  Arrangements and instructions must be made and advertised on signage to allow extra time for visitors with protected characteristics.  This has been tested against Local Authorities and both Norwich and Lincoln Councils had to change their policies to openly offer an extra hour per hour paid-for, to the disabled population at large (see exhibit JO-05).  NB: the Blue Badge scheme is not the only indicator of disability need on private land, so whilst that legal challenge was specific to that scheme, it is fully applicable in a wider sense to people with a relevant need, on private land (Blue Badge of not).  Extra time is a right and is easily arranged in advance as a 'reasonable adjustment' offered by a professional car park provider that pays due regard to the Equality Act 2010 and the EHRC CoP, which even has a worked example of the duty not to enforce inflexible time limits (a search of that CoP for the word 'tours' finds that example of Discrimination)

      The Beavis case is against this claim

      8.This situation can be fully distinguished from ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67, where the Supreme Court found that whilst the £85 was not (and was not pleaded as) a sum in the nature of damages or loss, ParkingEye had a 'legitimate interest' in enforcing the charge where motorists overstay, in order to deter motorists from occupying spaces beyond the time paid for and thus ensure further income for the landowner, by allowing other motorists to occupy the space. The Court concluded that the £85.00 charge was not out of proportion to the legitimate interest (in that case, based upon the facts and clear signs) and therefore the clause was not a penalty clause.

      9. However, there is no such legitimate interest where the landowner is not disadvantaged by the motorists’ stay, as in this case where I parked in a manner later approved of by the Claimant (as per paragraph 9). As such, I take the point that the parking charge in my case is a penalty, and unenforceable. The absence or concealment of signage and varying acceptability of parking areas are precisely the sorts of 'concealed pitfall or trap' and unsupported penalty that the Supreme Court considered in deciding what constitutes an unconscionable parking charge.

      10. Even taken as an extreme close-up, with no proof as to its visibility from the parking area, thesign that the Claimant has presented as evidence has vague/hidden terms and a mix of small font, so as for it not to allow the opportunity for anyone to become acquainted with its terms. As such, as specifically outlined in Example 10 of Schedule 2 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, the signage constitutes an unfair customer notice, and, pursuant to s62 of the same act, any terms would be considered incapable of binding any person reading them under common contract law. Consequently, it is my position that, even if I had seen signage of the sort presented by the Claimant which I didn’t as it was not present – no contract to pay an onerous penalty would have been seen, known or agreed.

      Abuse of process – the quantum

      11.The fairness of terms where no sum is specified, was recently ruled upon by Recorder Cohen QC, sitting at the Central London County Court, in the case of Chevalier-Firescu v Ashfords LLP [2021] F83YX432, where it was held that a term stating that the appellant would be held liable for costs on the indemnity basis was improper in purpose and thus unfair pursuant to s62 of the CRA, as it created imbalance between the parties.  Such a ‘contractual indemnity costs’ clause sidesteps the Civil Procedure Rules and cannot be recoverable, absent unreasonable conduct by the Defendant.

      12.Recorder Cohen held that: ''it does seem to me to be clear that this clause has an effect which is unusual, perhaps even abnormal in effect'' and at [13] he summarised the two issues arising from this remarkably similar clause to that in this case, which had the object or effect of creating a more generous basis of costs recovery than there would ordinarily be, in the case of both default judgments and defended cases, whereby consumers stood to be penalised as if CPR 27.14(g) applied.


      13.At the Bradford County Court, District Judge Claire Jackson (now HHJ Jackson, a Specialist Civil Circuit Judge) decided to hear a 'test case' a few months ago, where £60 had been added to a parking charge despite Judges up and down the country repeatedly disallowing that sum and warning parking firms not to waste court time with such spurious claims.   That case was Excel v Wilkinson: G4QZ465V, heard in July 2020 and leave to appeal was refused and that route was not pursued.  The Judge concluded that such claims are proceedings with 'an improper collateral purpose'.   This Judge - and others who have since copied her words and struck dozens of cases out in late 2020 and into 2021 - went into significant detail and concluded that parking operators (such as this Claimant) are seeking to circumvent CPR 27.14 as well as breaching the Consumer Rights Act 2015.   DJ Hickinbottom has recently struck more cases out in that court area, stating: ''I find that striking out this claim is the only appropriate manner in which the disapproval of the court can be shown''.

        Redacted Landowner Contract

        14. The Claimant has appended a redacted ‘Customer Licence Agreement’ which has little or no probative value and which offends against the rules of evidence. The ‘Client’ signatory of the ‘Agreement’ could be anyone, even a stranger to the land, and the Claimant provides no evidence that the ‘Client’ is the landowner.

        15. It is also clear that the document has not been signed by two Directors, nor by one Director in the presence of attesting witnesses, and as such cannot – according to the Companies Act – be considered a validly executed contract. The network of contracts are key in these cases, since the parking charges are argued to be contractual and the authority to sue visitors must flow from the landowner, not an agent.

        16. In the recent Court of Appeal case of Hancock v Promontoria (Chestnut) Limited [2020] EWCA Civ 907 the Court of Appeal are now clear that most redactions are improper where the Court are being asked to interpret the contract. https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2020/907.html

        Ref. paras 74 & 75 ''...The document must in all normal circumstances be placed before the court as a whole. Seldom, if ever, can it be appropriate for one party unilaterally to redact provisions in a contractual document which the court is being asked to construe, merely on grounds of confidentiality...confidentiality alone cannot be good reason for redacting an otherwise relevant provision...''

        My fixed witness costs – ref PD 27, 7.3(1) and CPR 27.14

        17. Upon confirmation that attendance at any hearing would result in a loss of leave, I will ask for my fixed witness costs of £95 as specified by CPR Practice Direction 27, 7.3(1), and due under CPR 27.14(2)(e).



        Statement of Truth

           

        I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true.  I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

            Witness’ signature: <SIGN HERE>     Date: <DATE> IN THE COUNTY COURT   Claim No.: <CLAIM #>   Between <PPC> (Claimant)    - and -     <NAME>  (Defendant) These are the exhibits marked JO-01 to JO-07 referenced in the witness statement, signed <NAME>, Defendant: <SIGN HERE> Date: <DATE> Exhibit JO-01 There are double yellow lines to this junction where stopping would be impossible Exhibit JO-02 the signs were obscured by a tree. (exhibit JO-02) Exhibit JO-03 :MY steroids treatment card and steroids emergency card with endocrinology letters Exhibit JO-04: MY DAUGHTERS HOSPITAL LETTERS AND MEDICATIONS

        Exhibit JO-05: Equality Act Code of Practice

        Exhibit JO-06: NHS stay at home letter

        Exhibit JO- 07: Copy of Excel Parking Services vs Wilkinson (G4QZ465V) Approved Judgement by Judge Jackson of Bradford County Court.

          DEFENDANT’S SCHEDULE OF COSTS

            Ordinary Costs Loss of leave through attendance at court hearing: £95.00 Signed <NAME>, Defendant:         <SIGN HERE> Date: <DATE>  




        • edited 22 July 2021 at 1:36PM
          Le_KirkLe_Kirk Forumite
          17.8K Posts
          Eighth Anniversary 10,000 Posts Photogenic Name Dropper
          ✭✭✭✭✭
          edited 22 July 2021 at 1:36PM
          You seem to have lost your formatting and it is all bunched up without paragraphs making it hard to read.  I see you have incorporated some of the changes I suggested.
        • merits28merits28 Forumite
          95 Posts
          10 Posts Name Dropper
          • Claim No; Name; (Defendant) Hearing Date:

            • IN THE COUNTY COURT

               

               

              Between

              VEHICLE CONTROL SERVICES LIMITED

              (Claimant) 

              -and -  

              NAME

              (Defendants)

            WITNESS STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT

          I am <NAME> of <ADDRESS>, and I am the Defendant against whom this claim is made. The facts are true to the best of my belief and my account has been prepared based upon my own knowledge. 

          2. In my statement I shall refer to exhibits within the evidence supplied with this statement, referring to page and reference numbers where appropriate. My defence is repeated and I will say as follows: SIGNAGE:

          3.The approach to the entrance of the car park is by turning sharply left from Eyre Street, across a busy pedestrian walkway and cycleway (exhibit JO- 01). There are double yellow lines to this junction where stopping would be impossible, and would also block the pedestrian and cycle crossing. The only safe way to view the car park terms and conditions is by entering the car park.

          4.  The sign age at the entrance to the car park is especially unclear ” as it is situated on the left hand side at an angle and can not be seen from the inside of a vehicle. The photographs that the claimant has provided are taken from the point of view of a pedestrian who is standing at the other side of the road ,In any case the signage is inadequate as it is so poorly sited and that it cannot really be said that it has been brought to the attention of the drivers of vehicles entering the site.  The signs were also obscured by a tree. (exhibit JO-02)  

              SEQUENCE OF EVENTS

          5.on that day I parked as me and my 3 children and a friend who came to visit from Africa went for shopping at the moor markets and while were going around she took ill and started vomiting and having episodes due to long term chronic health condition. The sick passenger needed painkillers and she was slow moving , as this was during covid 19 and I was pregnant and was also diagnose with over-active thyroid ( graves disease) I was on medications including steroids . MY steroids treatment card and steroids emergency card with endocrinology letters (exhibit JO-03) Also one of my 3 young daughters has sickle cell and on medications. My daughters hospital letters and medications ( exhibit JO-04) The passenger has unfortunately pass away due to covid .

          6.This parking was an hour free parking and I have overstay with some minutes, I Have appealed and my appeal was denied with a template letter without taking into consideration the sick occupants in the vehicle who had health challenges and the medical emergency that delay my return to the car, vehicle control services sent me a form to fill out with my income, I immediately contacted them, telling them I have no income, I am pregnant and I have health issues and one of my daughters have health issues so we were asked by the government to shield so we had our food and medications delivered to our home, but vehicle control services said I need to go out and post back the form or get someone to come to my house to help me post the form when no one was allowed into my house. I did try hard to resolve the issue out of court , I even offered a payments of £10 monthly when I spoke with them over the phone, they refused and instead wanted me to go against the covid rules and go out or let someone into my house to get the expenses form back to them. NHS stay at home at all times letter (exhibit JO-04) . The Claimant knew about the passengers' protected characteristics and reason for the overstay and did nothing, which is a failure to make reasonable adjustments, and illegal conduct.

            7.The needs of the passengers were such that they met the definition of disability in the Equality Act 2010 and as such, an arbitrary free parking time limit cannot be inflexibly applied.  This is true even in cases where the service provider did not know about the needs of individual consumers, given the Service Provider has a duty (set out in the Act and also forming a duty prescribed in the statutory EHRC Equality Act Code of Practice - 'CoP' - for Service Providers - exhibit JO-05) to consider the needs of the disabled population 'at large'.  Such discrimination falls under indirect discrimination and there is no justification that the Claimant 'didn't know' because clearly this retail park is a location where a typical 10% of visitors would be deemed disabled.  Arrangements and instructions must be made and advertised on signage to allow extra time for visitors with protected characteristics.  This has been tested against Local Authorities and both Norwich and Lincoln Councils had to change their policies to openly offer an extra hour per hour paid-for, to the disabled population at large (see exhibit JO-05).  NB: the Blue Badge scheme is not the only indicator of disability need on private land, so whilst that legal challenge was specific to that scheme, it is fully applicable in a wider sense to people with a relevant need, on private land (Blue Badge of not).  Extra time is a right and is easily arranged in advance as a 'reasonable adjustment' offered by a professional car park provider that pays due regard to the Equality Act 2010 and the EHRC CoP, which even has a worked example of the duty not to enforce inflexible time limits (a search of that CoP for the word 'tours' finds that example of Discrimination)

              The Beavis case is against this claim

            8.This situation can be fully distinguished from ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67, where the Supreme Court found that whilst the £85 was not (and was not pleaded as) a sum in the nature of damages or loss, ParkingEye had a 'legitimate interest' in enforcing the charge where motorists overstay, in order to deter motorists from occupying spaces beyond the time paid for and thus ensure further income for the landowner, by allowing other motorists to occupy the space. The Court concluded that the £85.00 charge was not out of proportion to the legitimate interest (in that case, based upon the facts and clear signs) and therefore the clause was not a penalty clause.

            9. However, there is no such legitimate interest where the landowner is not disadvantaged by the motorists’ stay, as in this case where I parked in a manner later approved of by the Claimant (as per paragraph 9). As such, I take the point that the parking charge in my case is a penalty, and unenforceable. The absence or concealment of signage and varying acceptability of parking areas are precisely the sorts of 'concealed pitfall or trap' and unsupported penalty that the Supreme Court considered in deciding what constitutes an unconscionable parking charge.

            10. Even taken as an extreme close-up, with no proof as to its visibility from the parking area, thesign that the Claimant has presented as evidence has vague/hidden terms and a mix of small font, so as for it not to allow the opportunity for anyone to become acquainted with its terms. As such, as specifically outlined in Example 10 of Schedule 2 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, the signage constitutes an unfair customer notice, and, pursuant to s62 of the same act, any terms would be considered incapable of binding any person reading them under common contract law. Consequently, it is my position that, even if I had seen signage of the sort presented by the Claimant which I didn’t as it was not present – no contract to pay an onerous penalty would have been seen, known or agreed.

              Abuse of process – the quantum

            11.The fairness of terms where no sum is specified, was recently ruled upon by Recorder Cohen QC, sitting at the Central London County Court, in the case of Chevalier-Firescu v Ashfords LLP [2021] F83YX432, where it was held that a term stating that the appellant would be held liable for costs on the indemnity basis was improper in purpose and thus unfair pursuant to s62 of the CRA, as it created imbalance between the parties.  Such a ‘contractual indemnity costs’ clause sidesteps the Civil Procedure Rules and cannot be recoverable, absent unreasonable conduct by the Defendant.

            12.Recorder Cohen held that: ''it does seem to me to be clear that this clause has an effect which is unusual, perhaps even abnormal in effect'' and at [13] he summarised the two issues arising from this remarkably similar clause to that in this case, which had the object or effect of creating a more generous basis of costs recovery than there would ordinarily be, in the case of both default judgments and defended cases, whereby consumers stood to be penalised as if CPR 27.14(g) applied.

              13.At the Bradford County Court, District Judge Claire Jackson (now HHJ Jackson, a Specialist Civil Circuit Judge) decided to hear a 'test case' a few months ago, where £60 had been added to a parking charge despite Judges up and down the country repeatedly disallowing that sum and warning parking firms not to waste court time with such spurious claims.   That case was Excel v Wilkinson: G4QZ465V, heard in July 2020 and leave to appeal was refused and that route was not pursued.  The Judge concluded that such claims are proceedings with 'an improper collateral purpose'.   This Judge - and others who have since copied her words and struck dozens of cases out in late 2020 and into 2021 - went into significant detail and concluded that parking operators (such as this Claimant) are seeking to circumvent CPR 27.14 as well as breaching the Consumer Rights Act 2015.   DJ Hickinbottom has recently struck more cases out in that court area, stating: ''I find that striking out this claim is the only appropriate manner in which the disapproval of the court can be shown''.

                Redacted Landowner Contract

              14. The Claimant has appended a redacted ‘Customer Licence Agreement’ which has little or no probative value and which offends against the rules of evidence. The ‘Client’ signatory of the ‘Agreement’ could be anyone, even a stranger to the land, and the Claimant provides no evidence that the ‘Client’ is the landowner.

              15. It is also clear that the document has not been signed by two Directors, nor by one Director in the presence of attesting witnesses, and as such cannot – according to the Companies Act – be considered a validly executed contract. The network of contracts are key in these cases, since the parking charges are argued to be contractual and the authority to sue visitors must flow from the landowner, not an agent.

              16. In the recent Court of Appeal case of Hancock v Promontoria (Chestnut) Limited [2020] EWCA Civ 907 the Court of Appeal are now clear that most redactions are improper where the Court are being asked to interpret the contract. https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2020/907.html

              Ref. paras 74 & 75 ''...The document must in all normal circumstances be placed before the court as a whole. Seldom, if ever, can it be appropriate for one party unilaterally to redact provisions in a contractual document which the court is being asked to construe, merely on grounds of confidentiality...confidentiality alone cannot be good reason for redacting an otherwise relevant provision...''

                My fixed witness costs – ref PD 27, 7.3(1) and CPR 27.14

              17. Upon confirmation that attendance at any hearing would result in a loss of leave, I will ask for my fixed witness costs of £95 as specified by CPR Practice Direction 27, 7.3(1), and due under CPR 27.14(2)(e).

                Statement of Truth
                   
                I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true.  I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.
                   

              Witness’ signature: <SIGN HERE>     Date: <DATE> IN THE COUNTY COURT   Claim No.: <CLAIM #>   Between <PPC> (Claimant)    - and -     <NAME>

               

              (Defendant) These are the exhibits marked JO-01 to JO-07 referenced in the witness statement, signed <NAME>, Defendant: <SIGN HERE> Date: <DATE>

              Exhibit JO-01 There are double yellow lines to this junction where stopping would be impossible

              Exhibit JO-02 the signs were obscured by a tree. (exhibit JO-02)

              Exhibit JO-03 :MY steroids treatment card and steroids emergency card with endocrinology letters

              Exhibit JO-04: MY DAUGHTERS HOSPITAL LETTERS AND MEDICATIONS

                Exhibit JO-05: Equality Act Code of Practice Exhibit JO-06: NHS stay at home letter Exhibit JO- 07: Copy of Excel Parking Services vs Wilkinson (G4QZ465V) Approved Judgement by Judge Jackson of Bradford County Court. DEFENDANT’S SCHEDULE OF COSTS
                  Ordinary Costs Loss of leave through attendance at court hearing: £95.00 Signed <NAME>, Defendant:         <SIGN HERE> Date: <DATE>  





            • merits28merits28 Forumite
              95 Posts
              10 Posts Name Dropper

              Le_Kirk said:
              You seem to have lost your formatting and it is all bunched up without paragraphs making it hard to read.  I see you have incorporated some of the changes I suggested.
              hello everyone , please have a look at my witness statement and let me know to add or remove anything. thank you
            • Coupon-madCoupon-mad
              105.6K Posts
              Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
              ✭✭✭✭✭✭
              You’ve missed at least three exhibits. 

               The Recorder Cohen transcript, the Hancock v Promontoria transcript (a link doesn’t cut it!) and the linked page I gave you about the Norwich Blue Badge ‘extra time’ legal challenge.  None should be links, they must all be PDFs (not copied into ordinary text). 

              Also your words don’t mention the exhibit number if the Excel v Wilkinson case. You obviously have to say ‘see exhibit JOxx’ at each point you refer to something. 
              PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
              CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
              Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
            • Le_KirkLe_Kirk Forumite
              17.8K Posts
              Eighth Anniversary 10,000 Posts Photogenic Name Dropper
              ✭✭✭✭✭
              4.  The signage at the entrance to the car park is especially unclear as it is situated on the left hand side at an angle and can not cannot be seen from the inside of a vehicle. The photographs that the claimant has provided are taken from the point of view of a pedestrian who is standing at the other side of the road ,In road, in any case, the signage is inadequate as it is so poorly sited and that it cannot really be said that it has been brought to the attention of the drivers of vehicles entering the site.  The signs were also obscured by a tree. (exhibit JO-02)
              A few more tweaks.  You had sign age not signage.  There is a spare " in the first line. It is cannot rather than can not.  You had a spare "and".  A comma comes immediately after the word and there is no space before a comma but there is afterwards.

            Sign In or Register to comment.
            Latest News and Guides