Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • rainday81
    • By rainday81 6th Oct 18, 7:12 PM
    • 22Posts
    • 5Thanks
    rainday81
    Witness Statement due
    • #1
    • 6th Oct 18, 7:12 PM
    Witness Statement due 6th Oct 18 at 7:12 PM
    I'm due in court on the 1st of November 2018 and I'm yet to submit my witness statement. I'm drafting the witness statement and plan to submit in the next few days, my question is that I've not received the witness statement from Gladstones, shall I be submitting before them or not, does this disadvantage me in any way? Thanks in advance. I'll be shortly posting my witness statement for any feedback.
Page 1
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 6th Oct 18, 7:20 PM
    • 64,896 Posts
    • 77,470 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #2
    • 6th Oct 18, 7:20 PM
    • #2
    • 6th Oct 18, 7:20 PM
    You will have to submit before them, if you are close to the deadline. Don't file late.
    • IamEmanresu
    • By IamEmanresu 7th Oct 18, 7:26 AM
    • 3,784 Posts
    • 6,229 Thanks
    IamEmanresu
    • #3
    • 7th Oct 18, 7:26 AM
    • #3
    • 7th Oct 18, 7:26 AM
    If you read the Notice of Allocation that gave you the date around paragraph 6 it will say something like "exchange of papers 14 days before".

    Search for the work "exchange" and tell us what it says.

    A Witness Statement is just the defendant's take on what happened that day. Both sides statements are exchanged at the same time (i.e. 14 days before) with the evidence.

    Both sides then can compare the Statements and the evidence then argue in court about the meaning of each [relevant] point. Sometimes it is useful to commit your arguments to paper and send it as a Skeleton Argument. Something the other side rarely does as they rely on a legal rep to argue the points on the day as these cases are really very simple.
    If you want to win - avoid losing first. Here are a few examples
    1. Failing to RTFM - the Civil Procedure Rules
    2. Failing to Acknowledge or Defend- See #1
    3. Failing to RTFCL - the Court letters
    4. Template defences that say nothing - See #1
    5. Forgetting about the Witness Statement - See #3
    • rainday81
    • By rainday81 7th Oct 18, 4:49 PM
    • 22 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    rainday81
    • #4
    • 7th Oct 18, 4:49 PM
    • #4
    • 7th Oct 18, 4:49 PM
    Paragraph 6 states that "Each party must deliver to the other party and to the court office copies of all documents on which that party intends to rely at the hearing no later than fourteen days before the hearing ".

    The letter also states that the hearing date is a provisional date.
    • onlyfoolsandparking
    • By onlyfoolsandparking 7th Oct 18, 5:09 PM
    • 477 Posts
    • 631 Thanks
    onlyfoolsandparking
    • #5
    • 7th Oct 18, 5:09 PM
    • #5
    • 7th Oct 18, 5:09 PM
    I'm due in court on the 1st of November 2018 and I'm yet to submit my witness statement. I'm drafting the witness statement and plan to submit in the next few days, my question is that I've not received the witness statement from Gladstones, shall I be submitting before them or not, does this disadvantage me in any way? Thanks in advance. I'll be shortly posting my witness statement for any feedback.
    Originally posted by rainday81

    Don't think it will disadvantage you in any way as you have to disclose everything to them before hearing BUT as CM says DO NOT file late.


    If Gallstones choose to file late then that's there problem and I'm sure Judge will not appreciate it.
    The real meaning of life is the pursuit of happiness and avoidance of pain
    • rainday81
    • By rainday81 8th Oct 18, 9:37 PM
    • 22 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    rainday81
    • #6
    • 8th Oct 18, 9:37 PM
    A reference to my defence, WS to follow
    • #6
    • 8th Oct 18, 9:37 PM
    This is the defence I submitted a couple of months ago. In my next post I'll submit my WS, I want to ensure I don't contradict myself so would kindly appreciate any help. I guess the crux of my argument is based around poor signage and secondly no grace period allowed. I have photographic evidence of broken signs which will form part of my WS evidence.

    Parking And Property Management Limited(CLAIMANT)

    -and-

    XXXXX XXXXXX (DEFENDANT)

    ________

    DEFENCE
    ________



    Background
    1. It is admitted that the defendant, XXXX XXXXX, is the registered keeper of the vehicle.

    1.1. It is denied that there was any 'relevant obligation' or 'relevant contract' relating to any parking event, in fact it is denied that the car was actually parked/left for any period of time that can warrant any 'contractual parking charge'.

    1.2. It is denied that any 'parking charges or indemnity costs' (whatever they might be) are owed. Any purported 'debt' is denied in its entirety.

    2. The alleged parking charge relates to two minutes whilst the vehicle was present at the stated location, before the driver could ascertain parking terms

    2.1. It is apparent the ticketer must have lurked, watched and immediately ticketed, conduct that is clearly predatory.


    2016 Appeal case (a Gladstones parking claim turning on similar facts) is persuasive
    3. The facts of this case are similar to those in the Appeal case of Jopson v Homeguard Services (B9GF0A9E, Oxford County Court, 2016), where a car had stopped temporarily near the entrance in order to unload some furniture. HHJ Harris QC held, in his Judgment at [18], that ''a right of access permitted short incidental stops for the purpose of access to her flat''. Specifically, it was stated that brief stops for delivering or unloading items, dropping off passengers, etc. were not 'parking'; a definition which was fully explored by this Senior Circuit Judge, who observed that life at a block of flats would be ''unworkable'' if every resident or visitor ran a risk of immediate ticketing, when the vehicle was not in fact parked, and before any contract could possibly have been agreed.

    4. The Judgment in Jopson also makes it clear that the factual circumstances are quite different from those which applied in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, and that case is distinguished.

    Poor Signage
    5 The signage on and around the site in question was damaged, unclear and not prominent and did not meet the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice or the Independent Parking Committee (IPC) Code of Practice. Evidence was supplied to the claimant of broken and obstructed signs. The Claimant is a member of the IPC at the time and committed to follow its requirements. Therefore no contract has been formed with driver to pay the amount demanded by the claimant.

    No Reasonable Grace Period Allowed by the Claimant - no contract formed
    5. Two minutes cannot be reasonably considered a 'grace period'; in which time the driver may find a sufficiently legible sign, so as to ascertain the terms of use of the parking bays. This is in breach of the the International Parking Community (IPC) code of practice, to which the claimant is an Accredited operator, and by which they must therefore abide. Whilst this Code of Practice is not statutory, compliance with the Code is mandatory in order for parking operators to obtain vehicle keeper details from the DVLA.

    5.1. Full compliance with the equivalent BPA Code of Practice was held to be 'effectively a regulatory framework' and given significant weight by the Supreme Court in Parkingeye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case), where the decision turned on very prominent signs, a commercial justification that (unusually) disengaged the penalty rule in that case alone, and the fact that Mr Beavis was given ample opportunity and time, to learn of the terms by which he would later be bound.

    5.2. The IPC Code states: 'Drivers should be allowed sufficient amount of time to park and read any signs so they may make an informed decision as to whether or not to remain on the site'.


    Unfairness - no regard for the Trader's duty for 'Fair Dealing' and Misleading Trading Practices
    6. Trade Body Codes of Practice are 'effectively binding' according to the Supreme Court in the Beavis case.

    6.1. Further, the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations identifies at section 5 'Misleading Actions': (3) A commercial practice satisfies the conditions of this paragraph if - (b) it concerns any failure by a trader to comply with a commitment contained in a code of conduct which the trader has undertaken to comply with, if;
    (i) the trader indicates in a commercial practice that he is bound by that code of conduct, and
    (ii) the commitment is firm and capable of being verified and is not aspirational.

    6.2. The Court's attention is drawn to the ''Red Hand Rule'', as set out in the leading judgment in J Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] EWCA Civ 3, where Denning MR stated:''The more unreasonable a clause is, the greater the notice which must be given of it. Some clauses would need to be printed in red ink with a red hand pointing to it before the notice could be held to be sufficient''.

    6.3. Underlining that is Section B.2.1, B.2.2 of the IPC Code of Practice which gives clear instructions as to the placing, visibility and clarity of any signs that must be used to form contracts. It says: ''It is therefore of fundamental importance that the signage meets the minimum standards under The Code as this underpins the validity of any such charge.''

    6.4. In the Beavis case, the Supreme Court Judges reiterated the requirement for fair and open dealing, at paragraph 205:''The requirement of good faith in this context is one of fair and open dealing. Openness requires that the terms should be expressed fully, clearly and legibly, containing no concealed pitfalls or traps. Appropriate prominence should be given to terms which might operate disadvantageously to the customer''

    6.5. Courts must now consider the fairness of a term, where it is not 'prominent and transparent'. Unfair terms here include the penalty fine itself, charges hidden in small print, lack of any fair grace period for the driver to seek out, read decide whether to accept any advertised parking contract, misleading and predatory conduct, added costs not specified prominently in the alleged contract, disproportionate default charges, non-observance of a Code of Practice. Such conduct and terms breach Part 2 'Unfair Contract Terms' of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (the CRA) which was enacted after the Beavis case final hearing, and remains untested in the context of unfair parking penalty charges.

    6.5.1. The Court's attention is drawn to the CRA at SCHEDULE 2, a non-exhaustive list of 'Consumer contract terms which may be regarded as unfair' which include clear references to conduct that is on all fours with that of this Claimant, and their solicitors.

    6.5.2. The CRA requires that key terms of a contract, including price, must be assessed for fairness by a court, where those terms are not both 'prominent and transparent' (which the Defendant avers they are not).
    The CRA, at para 71, sets out the duty of court to consider fairness of a consumer contract term: ''(2) The court must consider whether the term is fair even if none of the parties to the proceedings has raised that issue or indicated that it intends to raise it''.

    7. An honest, timely and concerted effort was made to appeal, but the points made to both the Claimant and the supposedly 'independent' IAS were effectively ignored, contrary to the IPC Code of Practice. It is now apparent to the Defendant that 'appeal' to IPC members and/or the IAS is futile, and that it is widely held to be a kangaroo court, luring members to the IPC under a well-publicised promise of 80% appeals going in favour of the parking firm. It is averred that this is why this Claimant moved from the BPA, where POPLA is independent from that Trade Body and consistently finds in consumers' favour in over half of appeal cases.

    7.1. The Defendant's research into the Claimant company reveals that, on Thursday 28th May 2015, the BBC Watchdog programme sent an undercover reporter into the Claimant's offices, to reveal the unscrupulous practices employed by the Claimant. Amongst many revelations, at one point their appeals handler stated on camera ''I make it up most of the time''; (a screenshot will be provided as evidence).

    7.2. Further research reveals that the IPC, and its supposedly independent appeals service ('IAS'), are all controlled by the two Directors of Gladstones Solicitors, who are acting for the Claimant in this matter. This can be confirmed by reference to Companies House records, and is evidence of a conflict of interest by which it is unlikely that any appeal would be fairly adjudicated. As such, this is a further indication that the Claimant does not come to the matter with clean hands.


    No commercial justification to penalise a prospective tenant - predatory conduct
    8. This Claimant is not the lawful occupier of the land is at best acting 'on behalf of' another agent. It is averred that this Claimant has no more than a bare licence to put signs up under an agency agreement, and this punitive charge is in conflict with any purported commercial justification.

    8.1. It is averred that there is no agreement from the landholder that bestows any rights to this non-landholder Claimant, to pursue visitors in the courts, in its own name.

    8.2. Specifically, it is the Defendant's honest belief that, even if there is a chain of authority from the landowner conferring such a right to pursue drivers of cars that have actually been parked/left at the location, this cannot reasonably allow immediate, predatory ticketing of drivers whilst the driver was seeking out terms of parking.

    8.3. The Claimant is put to strict proof of its legitimate interest and cause of action, given the facts of the case.


    This Claim is artificially inflated, but is embarrassing for scarce Particulars
    9. It is denied that the Claimant has any entitlement to the sums sought, and it is noted that this Claim has inflated the 'charges' in a typically routine attempt at double recovery of a sum which bears no relation to the sum on any sign or parking charge notice.

    10. No indemnity costs or damages have been incurred, nor were any debt collection 'fees' paid by this Claimant, and it is averred that the sum claimed is invented out of thin air as part of the Claimant's solicitors' robo-claim model, which is against the public interest, demonstrates a disregard for the dignity of the court and is unfair on unrepresented consumers. The defendant has reason to believe that this is a claim that will proceed without any facts or evidence supplied until the last possible minute, to the significant detriment of the unrepresented Defendant.


    11. The Claimant's solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no due diligence and no scrutiny of details. HMCS have identified thousands of similar poorly produced claims, and the solicitor's conduct in many of these cases is believed to be currently the subject of an active investigation by the SRA.

    10) It is suggested by the defendant that parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated debt collection is not something the courts should be seen to support.

    12. As stated within a letter sent by the defendant to Gladstone’s solicitors, it is the belief of the defendant that the letter of claim does not comply with the requirements of the Practice Direction on Pre-action Conduct and Protocols. The defendant requested a fully compliant Letter Before Claim from the claimant in order to assess the facts and produce a more detailed response to their correspondence. Two separate requests were made, but the same automated ‘robo’ response was received


    12. The Particulars of Claim lack specificity and are embarrassing. The Court is respectfully invited to strike out the claim, for similar reasons cited by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court on 20/09/16 where a parking claim was struck out without a hearing, due to Gladstones' template particulars for a private parking firm being 'incoherent', failing to comply with CPR16.4, and ''providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law''.

    13. Should the Claim not be struck out by the Court, as an alternative when Directions are given, the Defendant asks that there is an order for sequential service of witness evidence (rather than exchange). This is because it is expected that the Claimant/Gladstones will use the witness statement to finally provide the sort of detail which should have been disclosed much earlier in the missing Particulars of Claim. The Defendant should have the opportunity to consider the full particulars/evidence, prior to serving evidence and witness statements in support of this Defence.

    I believe that the facts contained in this Defence are true.
    • BubbleandSqueak75
    • By BubbleandSqueak75 8th Oct 18, 9:57 PM
    • 4 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    BubbleandSqueak75
    • #7
    • 8th Oct 18, 9:57 PM
    • #7
    • 8th Oct 18, 9:57 PM
    rainyday81, you're a gem. Several parts of your argument relate to my own situation.
    • rainday81
    • By rainday81 10th Oct 18, 12:07 AM
    • 22 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    rainday81
    • #8
    • 10th Oct 18, 12:07 AM
    Witness Statement Feedback Required
    • #8
    • 10th Oct 18, 12:07 AM
    Please find below the first draft of my witness statement, any feedback will be much appreciated. The reference docs/pics haven't been uploaded, happy to do so if required.

    parking company (Parking & Property Management Limited)
    v
    ******** (defendant)

    Claim no:



    I am the Defendant in this matter, 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.
    In this Witness statement, the facts and matters stated are true and within my own knowledge, except where indicated otherwise.

    1. Whilst I was the Registered Keeper of the vehicle concerned, there is no evidence of the driver. The claimant has issued a notice to keeper which is not compliant with the strict requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 as it fails to show any period of parking as per paragraph 8 (2)c PoFA 2012. Please see Exhibit 1

    2. The Defendant neither admits nor denies being the driver at the time of the supposed event, and therefore puts parking company to strict proof that any contract can exist between the Claimant and themselves.

    3. At the time in their notice to driver was issued it is possible for a number of people to have been the driver, but I have no obligation to name them to a private parking firm. It remains the burden of the Claimant to prove their case.

    4. Despite what appeared to be junk mail, impersonating a parking ticket I emailed PP&M on May XX 2017, email attached (Exhibit 2), requesting any documentation and relevant contracts with the land owners that allow the claimant to issue claims upon the landowner’s behalf. My request was denied.

    5. May XX 2017, I followed the appeal process and appealed to the IAS supplying photographic evidence of broken sign and failure to supply contract with landowner. (Exhibit 3 – Broken sign photo attached)

    6. The IAS rejected my appeal and ruled against me. Subsequent research into the IAS revealed that the IAS appears to blatantly disregard recognised standards of law and justice. the IAS carries official standing, but does not met the legal minimum criteria for an ADR Entity, It is used by operators to give the appearance of a fair hearing, although internally they know they are just going through the motions. (EXHIBIT 4 - FIND And Attach Something disregarding IAS)

    7. I received various threatening and intimidating letters from Gladstone Solicitors, demanding various amounts of money, threatening court action. I have researched this and discovered that parking company and Gladstone are issuing robo-claims for 'parking charges' in their thousands. (Exhibit 5)

    8. August 2017 – received letter before claim from Gladstone Solicitors. The letter was not compliant with the requirements of Annex A Para 2 of the Practice Direction on Pre-action Conduct (Exhibit 6 – Copy of LBC)

    9. In reply, I sent an email to Gladstone solicitors requesting a Letter Before Claim which complied with the requirements of Annex A Para 2 of the Practice Direction on Pre-action Conduct (Exhibit 7 – Copy of email sent)

    10 November 2017 – receive an identical Letter Before Claim from Gladstone Solicitors, again not compliant with the requirements of Annex A Para 2 of the Practice Direction on Pre-action Conduct (Exhibit 8- Copy of second LBC)

    11. In Reply to second Letter Before Claim, I sent another email pointing out the deficiencies in the letter before claim and again requesting a compliant LBC (Exhibit 9 – Copy of Email)

    12. May 2018: I received a Claim Form from Northampton CCBC, without ever having received a 'Letter Before Claim' that was compliant with Court Pre-Action Conduct.
    a. The Particulars of Claim (“PoC”) were sparse and lacking in detail.
    b. I checked the Civil Procedure Rules (“CPR”) and found that they did not comply with CPR
    c. 16.4 and Practice Direction (“PD”) 16.
    13. I am no more liable now than I was then, but this unwarranted harassment and baseless litigation has caused me significant alarm and distress, such that I intend to report Parking company to the Information Commissioner for misuse of my data, obtained from the DVLA.

    14. My DVLA data was supplied for the single strict purpose of enquiring who was driving, not for suing me as if I can now be held liable, in the hope I will not defend/will have lost the paperwork/will have moved house, or even better, that I will be so scared that I will pay over £160 for what was apparently an unproven £100 charge, allegedly incurred by another party, if incurred at all.

    15. It is apparent from court records reported in the public domain that this Claimant has been obtaining payments from keepers under false pretences - using the court as a cheap form of debt collection from the wrong 'registered keeper' parties - and has obtained default CCJs in the hundreds, despite never complying with the POFA 2012 and even bringing pre-POFA cases to the Courts.

    16. I have also visited the Car Park to take more photos in daylight hours and attached are photos of broken and obscure signs (Exhibit 10 and 11)

    17. The Defendant is at a serious disadvantage in this case.
    a. The case involves a well-funded Claimant who is a serial litigant with unlimited access to the services
    of qualified legal professionals, and who will be legally represented in this case; against an unrepresented Litigant in Person with no legal knowledge or experience of court process.

    b. The Claimant has issued vague and incoherent PoC such that the Defendant does not have enough information to know how to properly defend this claim.

    c. The Claimant has ignored the Defendant’s reasonable request for additional information, made so that he could properly understand the claim and respond/defend accordingly. This is contrary to pre-action protocols and the ‘Overriding Object’ (CPR 1)

    d. I therefore reserve my position to add further points once I have seen the Claimant’s court bundle containing their evidence and Witness Statement.


    I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.



    Signed xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 10th Oct 18, 1:21 AM
    • 11,319 Posts
    • 11,860 Thanks
    KeithP
    • #9
    • 10th Oct 18, 1:21 AM
    • #9
    • 10th Oct 18, 1:21 AM
    8 & 9. There hasn't been an Annex A in the Practice Direction for several years - at least three years.

    14. Yes, one reason for getting keeper details from the DVLA is to enquire about the driver, but surely POFA allows the PPC to attempt to transfer liability to the keeper. The point is, getting keeper info isn't for 'the single strict purpose' of asking about the driver.
    .
    • bargepole
    • By bargepole 10th Oct 18, 6:54 AM
    • 2,496 Posts
    • 7,154 Thanks
    bargepole
    1. Whilst I was the Registered Keeper of the vehicle concerned, there is no evidence of the driver. The claimant has issued a notice to keeper which is not compliant with the strict requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 as it fails to show any period of parking as per paragraph 8 (2)c PoFA 2012. Please see Exhibit 1

    2. The Defendant neither admits nor denies being the driver at the time of the supposed event, and therefore puts parking company to strict proof that any contract can exist between the Claimant and themselves.

    3. At the time in their notice to driver was issued it is possible for a number of people to have been the driver, but I have no obligation to name them to a private parking firm. It remains the burden of the Claimant to prove their case.
    A very dangerous route to go down. Many Judges will simply ask "Well, were you driving or not?", so how will you answer that. You have also said nothing at all about the events which led to the PCN being issued, which is the first thing the Judge will want to know.

    6. The IAS rejected my appeal and ruled against me. Subsequent research into the IAS revealed that the IAS appears to blatantly disregard recognised standards of law and justice. the IAS carries official standing, but does not met the legal minimum criteria for an ADR Entity, It is used by operators to give the appearance of a fair hearing, although internally they know they are just going through the motions. (EXHIBIT 4 - FIND And Attach Something disregarding IAS)
    Unless you can prove this with actual evidence, this point goes nowhere.

    9. In reply, I sent an email to Gladstone solicitors requesting a Letter Before Claim which complied with the requirements of Annex A Para 2 of the Practice Direction on Pre-action Conduct (Exhibit 7 – Copy of email sent)
    Out of date- see paras. 6a and 6b of the Pre-Action Protocol

    15. It is apparent from court records reported in the public domain that this Claimant has been obtaining payments from keepers under false pretences - using the court as a cheap form of debt collection from the wrong 'registered keeper' parties - and has obtained default CCJs in the hundreds, despite never complying with the POFA 2012 and even bringing pre-POFA cases to the Courts.
    Do you have evidence to prove this? And even if true, how is it relevant to your particular case?

    c. The Claimant has ignored the Defendant’s reasonable request for additional information, made so that he could properly understand the claim and respond/defend accordingly. This is contrary to pre-action protocols and the ‘Overriding Object’ (CPR 1)
    It's the Overriding Objective (CPR 1.1)

    All of this seems to be a 'technical' defence which many Judges will have seen before, and will give short shrift to.

    I have been providing assistance, including Lay Representation at Court hearings (current score: won 35, lost 10), to defendants in parking cases for over 5 years. I have an LLB (Hons) degree, and am a Graduate member of CILEx, studying towards a Fellowship (equivalent to solicitor) in Civil Litigation. However, any advice given on these forums by me is NOT formal legal advice, and I accept no liability for its accuracy.
    • rainday81
    • By rainday81 10th Oct 18, 8:51 AM
    • 22 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    rainday81
    Appreciate the feedback, not really sure where to go from here. So maybe admit to be being driver and expand on a poor signage defence? There was the fact that the car was booked within 5 minutes of being parked, not sure whether that's a point that carries any weight.
    • IamEmanresu
    • By IamEmanresu 11th Oct 18, 6:49 AM
    • 3,784 Posts
    • 6,229 Thanks
    IamEmanresu
    There was the fact that the car was booked within 5 minutes of being parked
    That may be relevant if you left immediately after but no good if the car stayed.

    A Witness Statement is just a narrative or a story about what happened that day from your viewpoint. If you were the driver and want to admit to being the driver, you can describe the poor signs / lack of warning etc.

    If you were not the driver, you just say what the driver claims or what you have discovered since. All with evidence as a judge won't take what you say on face value unless you can back it up.

    Just take the facts from the earlier defence and add to them. As Bargepole has pointed out the earlier defence is "factless" apart from confirming you are the RK
    If you want to win - avoid losing first. Here are a few examples
    1. Failing to RTFM - the Civil Procedure Rules
    2. Failing to Acknowledge or Defend- See #1
    3. Failing to RTFCL - the Court letters
    4. Template defences that say nothing - See #1
    5. Forgetting about the Witness Statement - See #3
    • rainday81
    • By rainday81 12th Oct 18, 12:41 PM
    • 22 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    rainday81
    Below is an account of what actually happened on the night, please advise whether I have something to defend here or whether I should cut my losses.

    In this case I was the driver, I was visiting some friends who had moved into the area.

    I drove into the estate and missed the sign at the entrance due to the entrance being off a main road roundabout, so you're automatically looking in the opposite direction for cars. I've subsequently visited the site and the entrance signs were very not prominent at all, especially at night.

    Not finding any parking space, I parked behind my friend's car that I recognised and went inside to enquire about parking. I must have been only a few minutes, I was given a visitor permit to display in car and told where to park, I returned to my car being ticketed. I spoke to the attendant and protested that I only parked for a few minutes and was going to move it to be told that "you can leave it parked here now".

    I subsequently looked at the signs around the place and they were either broken, bent or obscured; explaining why I would have missed them on the way in. I have images of these signs, but not sure that's enough of a defence in this case.

    I have received the claimants witness statement, will I be OK posting it on here if I obscure my name and case number?
    Last edited by rainday81; 12-10-2018 at 12:46 PM.
    • IamEmanresu
    • By IamEmanresu 12th Oct 18, 2:55 PM
    • 3,784 Posts
    • 6,229 Thanks
    IamEmanresu
    I drove into the estate and missed the sign at the entrance due to the entrance being off a main road roundabout, so you're automatically looking in the opposite direction for cars. I've subsequently visited the site and the entrance signs were very not prominent at all, especially at night.

    Not finding any parking space, I parked behind my friend's car that I recognised and went inside to enquire about parking. I must have been only a few minutes, I was given a visitor permit to display in car and told where to park, I returned to my car being ticketed. I spoke to the attendant and protested that I only parked for a few minutes and was going to move it to be told that "you can leave it parked here now".

    I subsequently looked at the signs around the place and they were either broken, bent or obscured; explaining why I would have missed them on the way in. I have images of these signs, but not sure that's enough of a defence in this case.

    I have received the claimants witness statement, will I be OK posting it on here if I obscure my name and case number?
    Tell it as it is above.

    The issues highlighted are

    1. Entrance signs are too small and unlit
    2. You were not a trespasser as you were given a permit
    3. You have the defence of estoppel in that you were told "you can leave it parked here now".
    4. If the person telling you to park was also the person that ticketed you, you have the opportunity for additional costs for predatory practices - if it can be proven on the balance of probabilities.

    Items 1 - 4 should be in a Skeleton and not a WS which as was mentioned before is just a narrative of the points you will be defending on.

    And yes, their WS would be useful for the Skeleton stage. Get your WS in on time.
    If you want to win - avoid losing first. Here are a few examples
    1. Failing to RTFM - the Civil Procedure Rules
    2. Failing to Acknowledge or Defend- See #1
    3. Failing to RTFCL - the Court letters
    4. Template defences that say nothing - See #1
    5. Forgetting about the Witness Statement - See #3
    • rainday81
    • By rainday81 13th Oct 18, 12:14 AM
    • 22 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    rainday81
    In follow up the advice I have received, for which I am very grateful, I have revised my witness statement to try to stick to the facts. Again, any advice is will be immensely appreciated;
    Claim no:

    I am the Defendant in this matter, 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.
    In this Witness statement, the facts and matters stated are true and within my own knowledge, except where indicated otherwise.

    1. I drove into the estate and missed the sign at the entrance due to the entrance being off a main road roundabout, so you're automatically looking in the opposite direction for cars. I've subsequently visited the site and seen that you have a few metres from the give way of the roundabout to turn right into the entrance giving the driver little opportunity to see the entrance sign. Exhibit 1

    2. Not finding any parking space, I parked behind my friend's car which I recognised and went inside to enquire about parking. I must have been only a few minutes, I was given a visitor permit to display in car and told where to park, I returned to my car being ticketed. I spoke to the attendant and protested that I only parked for a few minutes and was going to move it to be told that "you can leave it parked here now".

    3. I subsequently looked at the signs around the place and some were either broken, bent or obscured. I have attached the images of these signs. The one closest to my car was Exhibit (2) and this was flapping

    4. After learning that this ticket is in fact issue by a private parking company and not the council, as was my initial assumption from the affixed ticket which closely resembles a council penalty charge, I sought to enquire about the authority this company has in affixing parking charges in such a predatory manner.

    5. I emailed PP&M on Monday May 8th 2017, email attached (Exhibit 3), requesting any documentation and relevant contracts with the land owners that allow the claimant to issue claims upon the landowner’s behalf. My request was denied.

    6. Tuesday May 23rd 2017, I followed the appeal process and appealed to the IAS supplying photographic evidence of broken sign and failure to supply contract with landowner. (Exhibit 4 – Broken sign photo attached)

    7. I received various threatening and intimidating letters from Gladstone Solicitors, demanding various amounts of money, threatening court action.

    8. August 2017 – received letter before claim from Gladstone Solicitors. The letter was not compliant with the requirements of Annex A Para 2 of the Practice Direction on Pre-action Conduct (Exhibit 6 – Copy of LBC)

    9. In reply, I sent an email to Gladstone solicitors requesting a Letter Before Claim which complied with the requirements of Annex A Para 2 of the Practice Direction on Pre-action Conduct (Exhibit 7 – Copy of email sent)

    10. November 2017 – received an identical Letter Before Claim from Gladstone Solicitors, again not compliant with the requirements of Annex A Para 2 of the Practice Direction on Pre-action Conduct (Exhibit 8- Copy of second LBC)

    11. In Reply to second Letter Before Claim, I sent another email pointing out the deficiencies in the letter before claim and again requesting a compliant LBC (Exhibit 9 – Copy of Email)

    12. 10/05/18: I received a Claim Form from Northampton CCBC, without ever having received a 'Letter Before Claim' that was compliant with Court Pre-Action Conduct.


    I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.
    • rainday81
    • By rainday81 14th Oct 18, 6:44 PM
    • 22 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    rainday81
    Anyone? I really need to get this out tomorrow so would appreciate a once over.
    • IamEmanresu
    • By IamEmanresu 15th Oct 18, 5:31 AM
    • 3,784 Posts
    • 6,229 Thanks
    IamEmanresu
    We can't once over facts that only you know about. Send it in together with any evidence you have to back it up.

    What we can do is when their Witness Statement comes, is to compare what they say with what you have said happened. And what you say is pretty close to the normal parking company entrapment.

    So don't miss the deadline and come back if/when they send theirs for a check. It will come down to who the judge believes on the day.
    If you want to win - avoid losing first. Here are a few examples
    1. Failing to RTFM - the Civil Procedure Rules
    2. Failing to Acknowledge or Defend- See #1
    3. Failing to RTFCL - the Court letters
    4. Template defences that say nothing - See #1
    5. Forgetting about the Witness Statement - See #3
    • rainday81
    • By rainday81 15th Oct 18, 9:37 AM
    • 22 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    rainday81
    Hi Guys please find the claimants witness statement below. I've covered personal details. Please let me know if there's anything I need to include in my witness statement in light of their's.

    drive.google.com/open?id=1XQHeWIY5W1evfoTZwSW5MaEsbiy3hMwN
    • IamEmanresu
    • By IamEmanresu 15th Oct 18, 9:49 AM
    • 3,784 Posts
    • 6,229 Thanks
    IamEmanresu
    The main issue will be a statement or confirmation that you were given a permit.

    Since you say you knew to get a permit, then there is the inference you knew about the restrictions.

    However the key issue will be the time stamped pics which are 2 minutes apart. You can also ask the court to draw adverse inference from the fact the actual warden is not there to explain the issue as you have stated.
    If you want to win - avoid losing first. Here are a few examples
    1. Failing to RTFM - the Civil Procedure Rules
    2. Failing to Acknowledge or Defend- See #1
    3. Failing to RTFCL - the Court letters
    4. Template defences that say nothing - See #1
    5. Forgetting about the Witness Statement - See #3
    • rainday81
    • By rainday81 15th Oct 18, 11:17 AM
    • 22 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    rainday81
    I only came to know about the permit when I went upstairs to my friend’s flat and was informed I needed a permit. I can get a statement from my friend to this effect if that helps.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

958Posts Today

5,793Users online

Martin's Twitter