6 year old pcn county claim form received

Ok, here is what I have to start with... thoughts and advice welcome...

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT *******
CLAIM NUMBER: ******
EXCEL SERVICES LTD
(Claimant)

-and-

********(Defendant)

___________________

WITNESS STATEMENT
___________________

I, ********** of 1********************** am the defendant in this case. I am unrepresented, with no experience of Court procedures. If I do not set out documents in the way that the Claimant may do, I trust the Court will excuse my inexperience.

1. The facts in this statement come from my personal knowledge. Where they are not within my own knowledge there are true to the best of my information and belief.

2. I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all and this is my Witness Statement in support of my defence as already filed.

3. The claimant has produced no evidence of who was driving

4. I assert that I was the registered keeper (RK) of the vehicle in question in this case. I was not the driver.

5. The claimant cannot “presume” that the defendant and RK was the driver at the time of the alleged contravention. For the following reasons.

6. There is no law that allow them to do this.

7. The defendant asserts under ‘statement of truth’ that he was not the driver on this occasion. This will be repeated in court should this claim proceed to a hearing.

8. With no route in law to transfer liability for any alleged contravention, by a driver - to the RK, this claim is null and void. There is no case to answer. The claimant must prove who was driving then take the matter up separately with that person.

9. Barrister and parking law expert Henry Greenslade was the ‘Parking on Private Land Appeals’ (“POPLA”) Lead Adjudicator from 2012 – 2015. This is an independent appeals service offered by the British Parking Assosciation (“BPA”) and Excel was under that Trade Body at the time of the alleged contravention. I adduce as evidence (exhibit XXX) Mr Greenslade’s opinion in the POPLA Annual Report 2015 which confirms that there is no presumption in law that a keeper was the driver and that keepers do not have any legal obligation whatsoever, to name drivers to private parking companies. (Exhibit Popla 2015)

10. The Claimant claims no right to pursue myself the Defendant as the registered keeper as they have failed to meet the conditions of PoFA 2012. I the keeper could only be held liable if the claimant had fully complied with the strict requirements. (Exhibit PoFA Schedule 4)

11. I refer to Excel v Mr B C7DP8F83 at Sheffield 14/12/2016. In this case the Keeper was not the driver, so he elected to offer no evidence, and put the claimant to strict proof. This of course was an impossibility for the claimant. As Mr B was not the driver, there would be no way they could offer any proof. The Judge made it clear that without proof of driver, and without invoking Keeper Liability, there was no claim against the Keeper. ( Exhibit – Excel Vs Mr

12. The claimant is known to use Elliot V Loake as part of their defence. I refer to Excel v Mr C C8DP37F1 at Stockport 31/10/2016. In this case the judge recognised that Elliot vs Loake was completely irrelevant. In dismissing the claim the judge stated amongst his reasons for doing so that - Excel did not adduce evidence of the driver, and - Elliott v Loake is not persuasive, and can be distinguished. (Exhibit Excel V Mr C)

13. I refer to the case of Excel v Ian Lamoureux, C3DP56Q5 at Skipton 17/11/2016. The Judge was critical of the claimant’s attempts to hold the keeper liable. The judge suggested that the only way Mr Lamoureux could be held liable was if he was the driver and Excel could prove he was (which they could not). The judge stated “I think the claim against Mr Lamoureux is totally misconceived because it has no evidence that he is the driver and it seems to be relying on some assumption that the registered keeper is the driver because it is not seeking to rely on the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012”. (Exhibit Excel Vs Lamoureux ).

14. The claimant has waited until two days before any alleged ‘debt’ is Statute Barred under the conditions of the Limitations Act 1980 to file a claim. The passage of time (six years) is such that I cannot recall the exact details of the day and location in question.

15. The location in question is a site which in 2012 was criticised in national media and by local MPs for inadequate and unclear signage leading to the cancellation of a number of notices against motorists by the Claimant.

16. It cannot be assumed that anyone entering the car park in 2012 - when Excel used particularly crowded and illegible wording on all their signage - was aware of or agreed to any 'parking charge' terms. The Claimant is put to strict proof that the driver (an unidentified party) saw, read and agreed to a contract upon which the claimant is relying.

17. I put the claimant to strict proof of all their claims including providing time and date stamped photographic evidence of signage in situ.

18. My case can be distinguished from the Beavis case, which was dependent upon Mr Beavis being the driver who accepted a clear contract, formed by unusually prominent signage. Strict compliance with the BPA Code of Practice and the clear, prominent terms on brief signs was held to be paramount. None of this applies in this material case. (Exhibit- Beavis Case Sign).

19. As a member of the British Parking Association (BPA) in 2012, this Claimant was banned by the DVLA for several months for 'a significant breach' of the Code of Practice. This ban was reported by the DVLA in a Freedom of Information reply in the public domain, as relating to unacceptable and misleading wording on their signs, which attempted to suggest a registered keeper could be liable, before the POFA was enacted. Implying that a keeper could be liable or responsible for the actions of a driver was identified by the DVLA as so serious a matter that Excel was banned from obtaining registered keeper data for three months. From their action in my case it is clear they have not changed their tactics. They are attempting to hold me liable as they RK when, in law, they can do no such thing. (Exhibit - DVLA Freedom of information Request Regarding Excel 2012 Ban).

I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true.

Signed
Date

I haven't got any of the documents or transcripts yet. That's my next job. I also currently have no way of printing it all out. Gonna need a trip to the library!

Quick question.
Some of the transcripts are big - should I print the whole thing or an exerpt which supports my case? Will the court read the whole thing?