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
    • BandB58
    • By BandB58 9th Oct 18, 5:57 PM
    • 19Posts
    • 6Thanks
    BandB58
    Witness statements exchanged, advice please (PCM/Gladstones)
    • #1
    • 9th Oct 18, 5:57 PM
    Witness statements exchanged, advice please (PCM/Gladstones) 9th Oct 18 at 5:57 PM
    Hi,

    I've been doing plenty of reading on this forum and the PADI site today as I've just received a court claim form. I've registered an AOS and now starting on the defence, but I have a couple of things which I'd be grateful for advice on before I do. I've listed the timings and other useful info such as the particulars of claim below so hopefully these are enough for people to offer some advice.

    EDITED: Just to say I have created a thread as per the guidance in the Newbies thread given I've now received a court claim and I will update this with a draft defence once I've done it, but I am about to go away until 20 October so won't get to it properly until then.

    Thanks in advance

    1. Do the particulars of claim (exact wording below) give me grounds to seek further details from the claimant? And if so, what is the best way to do this, e.g., is a Part 18 request appropriate?
    2. As I understand it, the fact the Claimant hasn't issued a LBC isn't grounds for the claim to be dismissed but is something I should mention in the defence, is this correct?

    Claimant: Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd
    Solicitors: Gladstone
    County Court Claim Issued: 03-10-18
    AOS submitted: 09-10-18

    Particulars of claim:
    The driver of the vehicle registration XXX (the 'Vehicle') incurred the parking charge(s) on XXX for breaching the terms of parking on the land at XXX.
    The Defendant was driving the Vehicle and/or is the Keeper of the Vehicle.
    AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS
    £XXX for Parking Charges/Damages and indemnity costs if applicable, together with interest of £XXX pursuant to s69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at 8% pa, continuing to Judgment at £XXX per day.
    Last edited by BandB58; 13-01-2019 at 5:01 PM. Reason: Changed title to latest status
Page 2
    • BandB58
    • By BandB58 30th Oct 18, 11:42 PM
    • 19 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    BandB58
    Yes mention it where you say how sparse the particulars are.
    Will do, thanks.
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 30th Oct 18, 11:45 PM
    • 13,685 Posts
    • 14,953 Thanks
    KeithP
    What about the point ref named location being different to the actual road name where the vehicle was parked? Does this have any relevance or not worth adding to the Defence?
    Originally posted by BandB58
    If the whole of Salisbury Village is private land controlled by this PPC, e.g. if Salisbury Village is a private estate, then it makes no difference.

    Is this Salisbury Village Hatfield?
    .
    • BandB58
    • By BandB58 30th Oct 18, 11:52 PM
    • 19 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    BandB58
    If the whole of Salisbury Village is private land controlled by this PPC, e.g. if Salisbury Village is a private estate, then it makes no difference.

    Is this Salisbury Village Hatfield?
    Yes it is. I'm not local, but having driven around the area a bit more recently it does seem to be a private estate controlled by the PPC. But I didn't see any signage anywhere referencing Salisbury Village hence questioning whether the PPC should have named the specific road.

    I've added a mention of this in my Defence as per the suggestion above to help highlight the sparseness of the particulars, but understand this naming point might not carry any weight.
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 30th Oct 18, 11:57 PM
    • 13,685 Posts
    • 14,953 Thanks
    KeithP
    This has been posted about before.

    Search the forum for Salisbury Village, using show posts, to find eleven posts mentioning it - last mention was just just over two weeks ago - on 13 October.

    There may, or may not, be something useful there.
    .
    • BandB58
    • By BandB58 8th Nov 18, 6:17 PM
    • 19 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    BandB58
    Update on this and a question I'd appreciate help with:

    I've received a letter from Gladstones telling me they have notified the court of their Client's intention to proceed with the claim & they enclosed a copy of their Directions questionnaire.

    I am about to go away for just over 2 weeks and I am worried that my Directions questionnaire will turn up during that time, so my question is how long do you have to complete & send back a Directions questionnaire? I had a read through the newbies & time-line threads but couldn't see an answer to this.

    Thanks as always for the help
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 8th Nov 18, 6:22 PM
    • 13,685 Posts
    • 14,953 Thanks
    KeithP
    I just stuck how long to return directions questionnaire into google and found the answer - fourteen days.

    Took much less time that it took you to write that post.
    .
    • BandB58
    • By BandB58 8th Nov 18, 8:06 PM
    • 19 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    BandB58
    I just stuck how long to return directions questionnaire into google and found the answer - fourteen days.

    Took much less time that it took you to write that post.
    Touche, but thanks.

    I should've left the follow up question I had originally written in... Would it be sensible to either a) contact the court to explain I am going away so I may need longer than 14 days to return the questionnaire or b) should I download the questionnaire, complete & send off now even though I haven't yet received it from the court or c) any other suggestions?
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 8th Nov 18, 8:09 PM
    • 13,685 Posts
    • 14,953 Thanks
    KeithP
    I would choose option b).

    That way you are totally in control.

    When completed send the DQ in the same manner and to the same email address as described in post #3 above.

    Not forgetting of course to send a copy to the Claimant - address on the Claim Form.
    .
    • BandB58
    • By BandB58 16th Dec 18, 1:52 PM
    • 19 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    BandB58
    I've now received a Notice of Allocation with a court date set for late Feb 2019. Interestingly I have to submit my bundle/docs by end Dec so realistically that means getting them in before Xmas.

    I've had a go at my Witness Statement and Skeleton Argument and would welcome any feedback on them both.

    Witness Statement

    IN THE COUNTY COURT AT XXX COUNTY COURT
    Claim No.: XXXX

    Between

    Parking Control Management (UK) Limited) (Claimant)

    -and-

    [MY NAME] (Defendant)


    _____________________

    Witness statement of ******* (Defendant)

    I am the Defendant in this matter and 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.

    I assert that I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all, for the following reasons:

    1. Whilst I was the Registered Keeper of the vehicle concerned, there is no evidence of the driver.
    2. The Defendant denies being the driver at the time of the supposed event, and therefore puts Parking Control Management (UK) Limited to strict proof that any contract can exist between the Defendant and themselves.
    3. At the time in 2017, the insurance covered more than one family member, who I have no obligation to name to a private parking firm. It remains the burden of the Claimant to prove their case.
    4. Further, it is denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract:
    4(i). The single sign displayed upon entering the location (XXX) from the adjoining road (YYY) is obscured by a lamppost and as such is in a position where someone in a passing vehicle is unlikely to see it. (Exhibit XX).
    4(ii). There is no signage on the side of the road that the vehicle was parked and therefore there is no indication that there are any terms & conditions associated with parking there. (Exhibits XX & YY).
    4(iii). There are no markings on the road itself where the vehicle was parked and therefore there is no indication that there are any terms & conditions associated with parking there. (Exhibits XX & YY).
    4(iv). The terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. Furthermore, the charge is buried in the small print and is an unfair term. (Exhibits XX & YY).
    5. This lack of signage upon entering the location goes against its CoP guidelines:
    Part E, Schedule 1 of the Code of Practice of the International Parking Community (of which Parking Control Management is a member), clearly states that “Text should be of such a size and in a font that can be easily read by a motorist having regard to the likely position of the motorist in relation to the sign". Entrance Signs should:
    a) Make it clear that the motorist is entering onto private land.
    b) Refer the motorist to the signs within the car park which display the full terms and conditions.
    The signage is not as per the code.
    6. Examples of the signage in the location shows signs which are small and not easy to read particularly from a car. (Exhibits XX, YY and ZZ). An example of the Parking Eye v Beavis case which shows an easier to read sign. (Exhibit XX)
    7. On the xxx2017 a Parking Charge Notice was left on the vehicle, VRN XXX.
    8. On the xxx2017 I appealed as the Registered Keeper via Parking Control Management’s online appeals system.
    9. On the xxx2017 I received a rejection letter to my appeal to Parking Control Management along with a demand for £100. (Exhibit XX).
    10. On the xxx2018 I received a demand from Trace Debt Recovery for £160 with no explanation for the increased amount and threatening further debt recovery. No figure for additional charges was agreed nor could it have formed part of the ‘alleged’ contract because no such indemnity costs were quantified on the sign’s Terms and cannot be bolted on later with figures plucked out of thin air, as if they were incorporated into the small print, when they were not. (Exhibit XX).
    11. On the xxx2018 I received a further demand from Trace Debt Recovery for £160, again without any explanation for the increased amount.
    12. On the xx2018 I received a letter from Gladstones Solicitors demanding £160 be paid to Trace Debt Recovery, again without any explanation for the increased amount.
    13. On the xxx2018 I received a County Court claim form from the County Court Business Centre, Northampton for a total of £xxx. Once again, the demand specified an increased amount without any explanation.
    I would like to bring to the Judge’s attention that the Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol (as outlined in the new Pre Action Protocol for Debt Claims, 1 October 2017) as there was no compliant Letter before County Court Claim, which should have been produced, pursuant to paragraph 6 of the Practice Direction Pre Action Conduct.
    14. The particulars of claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached. Indeed, the particulars of claim are not clear and concise as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a). There is no information regarding why the charge arose, what the original charge was, what the alleged contract was nor anything which could be considered a fair exchange of information. It just states “parking charge(s)” which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought.
    15. The claimant failed to send a copy of their written contract as per Practice Direction 16 7.3(1) and Practice Direction 7C 1.4(3A). No indication is given as to the Claimants contractual authority to operate there as required by the Claimants Trade Association's Code of Practice B1.1 which says:
    “1.1 If you operate parking management activities on land which is not owned by you, you must supply us with written authority from the land owner sufficient to establish you as the ‘Creditor’ within the meaning of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (where applicable) and in any event to establish you as a person who is able to recover parking charges. There is no prescribed form for such agreement and it need not necessarily be as part of a contract but it must include the express ability for an operator to recover parking charges on the landowner’s behalf or provide sufficient right to occupy the land in question so that charges can be recovered by the operator directly. This applies whether or not you intend to use the keeper liability provisions.”
    As Gladstones are a firm of solicitors whose Directors also run the IPC Trade Body and deal with private parking issues every single day of the week there can be no excuse for these omissions.
    16. I also dispute that the Claimant has incurred £60 costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, in Schedule 4, Para 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the Keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100.
    17. The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation as to how the sum has been calculated, the conduct that gave rise to it or how the amount has climbed from £100 to £160.
    18. On the xxx2018 I submitted my Acknowledgement of Service via the MCOL website.
    19. On the xxx2018 I submitted by Defence to the County Court Business Centre and sent a copy to Gladstones Solicitors. (Exhibit XX).

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


    Signature of Defendant:

    Date:


    Skeleton Argument

    1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.
    2. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant was driving the Vehicle and/or is the Keeper of the Vehicle. These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5.
    2.(i). Further, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached. Their particulars of claim just state "…incurred the parking charge(s) on xxx2017 for breaching the terms of parking on the land at xxx" and do not say whether the sum is due as a contractual sum, damages for breach of contract or money due for something else, such as a liability for a failure of duty of care or trespass under common law tort.
    2.(ii). In addition, the location stated in the Particulars of Claim (“XXX”) differs from the actual location the vehicle was parked (XXX).

    THE CIVIL PROCEDURE RULE 16.4 IS APPENDED AS EXHIBIT: E.1
    THE CIVIL PRACTICE DIRECTION 16, PARAS. 7.3 TO 7.5 IS APPENDED AS EXHIBIT: E.2
    3. The Defendant has no liability as they are the Keeper of the vehicle, and the Private Parking Company has failed to comply with the strict provisions of PoFA 2012 to hold anyone other than the driver liable for the charges.
    3(i). the driver has not been evidenced on any occasion.
    3(ii). There is no presumption in law that the Keeper was the driver and nor is a Keeper obliged to name the driver to a private parking firm. The vital matter of 'keeper liability' regarding the law when parking on private land was confirmed by parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in 2015 in the Annual Report where he stated:

    “There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver. [...] If... {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is}... not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass."

    A COPY OF HENRY GREENSLADE’S WORDING FROM THE POPLA ANNUAL REPORT 2015 ‘UNDERSTANDING KEEPER LIABILITY’ IS APPENDED AS EXHIBIT: E.3
    3.(iii).Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle, where an operator is unable to transfer the liability for the charge using the POFA. This claim is founded upon a misrepresentation of facts and misrepresentation of the law.

    4. The original PCN posted by this Claimant states a Full Charge of £100.00 (£60.00 discounted), however, the Claimant's legal firm now inflates these sums, in a deliberate or negligent attempt at double recovery:

    1. Principal debt: £100.00
    2. Recovery costs: £60.00
    3. Interest: £10.25
    4. Legal representative’s costs: £50
    5. Court fee: £25.00
    6. Outstanding balance to pay now: £245.25

    THE ORIGINAL PARKING CHARGE NOTICE IS APPENDED AS EXHIBIT: E.4

    5. It is clear that no checks have been made as to the facts of the alleged contract, signs or parking charge, in this Claimant's undue haste to issue robo-claims in their thousands, under excuse of jumping on the bandwagon started by the (completely different and complex) case in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 ('the Beavis case').


    6. The Claimant had no locus standi at the time of this parking event and at best, were contractors of a principal, the landowner. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge, unless specifically authorised by the principal:

    6.(i). The Claimant has failed to send a copy of their written contract as per Practice Direction 16 7.3(1) and Practice Direction 7C 1.4(3A). No indication is given as to the Claimants contractual authority to operate there as required by the Claimants Trade Association's Code of Practice B1.1 which says:
    “1.1 If you operate parking management activities on land which is not owned by you, you must supply us with written authority from the land owner sufficient to establish you as the ‘Creditor’ within the meaning of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (where applicable) and in any event to establish you as a person who is able to recover parking charges. There is no prescribed form for such agreement and it need not necessarily be as part of a contract but it must include the express ability for an operator to recover parking charges on the landowner’s behalf or provide sufficient right to occupy the land in question so that charges can be recovered by the operator directly. This applies whether or not you intend to use the keeper liability provisions.”

    6.(ii). They have failed to show a cause for action by way of sight of a copy of the contract they have with the landowner to assign the right to enter into contracts with the public and to make claims and take civil action against drivers in their own name.

    6.(iii). As Gladstones are a firm of solicitors whose Directors also run the IPC Trade Body and deal with private parking issues every single day of the week there can be no excuse for these omissions.

    6.(iv). The Defendant therefore has the reasonable belief that the Claimant does not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name, and that they have no right to bring any action regarding this claim.


    7. The Beavis case at 96, draws attention to the Code of Practice of the British Parking Association ('the BPA'). And at 111 the Judge helpfully comments that “while the Code of Practice is not a contractual document, it is in practice binding on the operator since its existence and observance is a condition of his ability to obtain details of the registered keeper from the DVLA. In assessing the fairness of a term, it cannot be right to ignore the regulatory framework which determines how and in what circumstances it may be enforced.” (Defendant’s emphasis of the key point).

    THE BEAVIS CASE IS APPENDED AS EXHIBIT E.5

    7.(i). The Claimant is a member of a similar body, the International Parking Community. Their Code of Practice sets clear guidance for how operators should display signage upon entering a location:

    Part E, Schedule 1 of the Code of Practice of the International Parking Community, clearly states that “Text should be of such a size and in a font that can be easily read by a motorist having regard to the likely position of the motorist in relation to the sign" and that “Entrance Signs should:
    a) Make it clear that the motorist is entering onto private land.
    b) Refer the motorist to the signs within the car park which display the full terms and conditions.”

    The signage does not meet these criteria and as such this comprises two clear breaches of the IPC Code of Practice.

    THE IPC CODE OF PRACTICE IS APPENDED AS EXHIBIT E.6

    8. It is contended that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract:

    8(i). The single sign displayed upon entering the location (XXX) from the adjoining road (YYY) is obscured by a lamppost and as such is in a position where someone in a passing vehicle is unlikely to see it.

    THE SIGN DISPLAYED UPON ENTERING XXX FROM XXX IS APPENDED AS EXHIBIT E.7

    8(ii). There is no signage on the side of the road that the vehicle was parked and therefore there is no indication that there are any terms & conditions associated with parking there.

    PHOTOS OF WHERE THE VEHICLE WAS PARKED ON XXX2017 ARE APPENDED AS EXHIBIT E.8, E.9 AND E.10.


    8(iii). There are no markings on the road itself where the vehicle was parked and therefore there is no indication that there are any terms & conditions associated with parking there.

    PHOTOS OF WHERE THE VEHICLE WAS PARKED ON XXX2017 ARE APPENDED AS EXHIBIT E.8, E.9 AND E.10.

    8(iv). The terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. Furthermore, the charge is buried in the small print and is an unfair term.

    PHOTOS OF THE CLAIMANT’S SIGNAGE FROM THE SIDE OF THE ROAD WHERE THE VEHICLE WAS PARKED ARE APPENDED AS EXHIBIT E.11 AND E.12.


    8(v). This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case) which was dependent upon an undenied contract, formed by unusually prominent signage forming a clear offer and which turned on unique facts regarding the location and the interests of the landowner. Strict compliance with the BPA Code of Practice (CoP) was paramount and Mr Beavis was the driver who saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay £85 after exceeding a licence to park free. Based upon points 9(i), 9(ii), 9(iii) and 9(iv) above, none of this applies in this material case.

    A COPY OF THE SIGN FROM THE PARKINGEYE VS BEAVIS CASE IS APPENDED AS EXHIBIT E.13.

    9. Alternatively, even if there was a contract, the provision requiring payment of £100 is an unenforceable penalty clause.

    10. Further and alternatively, the provision requiring payment of £100 is unenforceable as an unfair term contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

    11. Furthermore, the Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol (as outlined in the new Pre Action Protocol for Debt Claims, 1 October 2017) as there was no compliant Letter before County Court Claim, which should have been produced, pursuant to paragraph 6 of the Practice Direction Pre Action Conduct.

    12. It is noted that in view of all of the above, the Court could decide of its own volition to strike this claim out under CPR 16.4 and as an unrepresented Defendant I ask the presiding Judge to use their case management powers and relieve me of the burden of having to appear to defend myself as registered keeper, in view of the Claimant having supplied no evidence of any basis for a claim against me in law.


    I believe that the facts stated in this Skeleton Defence are true.



    Signed xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


    Dated xxxxxxxxxxx
    • BandB58
    • By BandB58 17th Dec 18, 3:35 PM
    • 19 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    BandB58
    Any thoughts on these from any of the regulars on here? I'm keen to get this sorted asap so I can forget about it over Xmas!
    • Tx2mush
    • By Tx2mush 17th Dec 18, 10:26 PM
    • 16 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    Tx2mush
    hi there any luck on completing the witness statement as I seem to be stuck on the same stage aswell and the forum has gone very quiet.
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 17th Dec 18, 10:30 PM
    • 13,685 Posts
    • 14,953 Thanks
    KeithP
    There are hundreds of Witness Statements on this board. I wouldn't mind betting that there are hundreds from this year alone.

    Can you both not look around and see how others have fared?
    .
    • BandB58
    • By BandB58 17th Dec 18, 10:49 PM
    • 19 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    BandB58
    Thanks for the constructive response Keith... I have done exactly that, spending several hours on here searching & reading and then crafted both my attempts largely using outtakes from various examples I found, but then I've done what most others seem to and the likes of Coupon Mad , etc. recommend which is to post my draft versions up for critique.

    I'm sure I also read somewhere whilst searching that the frequent & knowledgeable contributors such as Coupon Mad prefer to spend their time helping the likes of me who are at critical points with court case confirmed & WS/evidence deadlines approaching vs answering the many generic questions/threads covered in the newbies thread.

    I don't profess to be in any way knowledgeable about any of this and have said many times how grateful I am for the help (just look at some of my previous posts above), but if I now need to go it alone I guess I have no choice.
    • BandB58
    • By BandB58 13th Jan 19, 5:00 PM
    • 19 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    BandB58
    Update on this case:
    Witness Statements have now been exchanged so I would appreciate it if any of the experts on here could read through them, especially the Claimant's one and offer me any advice on how to handle in court.

    I am planning to do a skeleton argument to help me on the day. Court date is late Feb so I have time to prepare, but keen to get cracking especially as I am out of the country for the first 3 weeks of Feb.

    I have added all files to Dropbox, so hoping someone can create a live link:

    Defendant WS:
    hxxps://www.dropbox.com/s/r8czuc9va3f1o57/Defendant%20Witness%20Statement%20-%20Edited.docx.pdf?dl=0

    Claimant WS (missing last page, this is a separate doc, link below):
    hxxps://www.dropbox.com/s/79owgrueyqojsso/Claimant%20Witness%20Statement%20-%20edited.pdf?dl=0

    Last page of Claimant WS:
    hxxps://www.dropbox.com/s/gp3amdbfkhs48kr/Claimant%20Witness%20Statement%20last%20page%20-%20edited.pdf?dl=0
    Last edited by BandB58; 13-01-2019 at 5:23 PM.
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 13th Jan 19, 5:10 PM
    • 13,685 Posts
    • 14,953 Thanks
    KeithP
    www.dropbox.com/s/4ly6zt1k1varry1/Claimant%20Witness%20Statement%20last%20page.pdf?d %20l=0

    Just quickly looked at their photo of their sign.

    Amazing. Not only is it a poor photo, it's a poor sign.

    I cannot see where it says anything about the parking charge - it certainly is not prominent.

    Point that out robustly in in your SA. Compare it with the Beavis sign - images available via google.
    .
    • BandB58
    • By BandB58 13th Jan 19, 5:21 PM
    • 19 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    BandB58
    www.dropbox.com/s/4ly6zt1k1varry1/Claimant%20Witness%20Statement%20last%20page.pdf?d %20l=0

    Just quickly looked at their photo of their sign.

    Amazing. Not only is it a poor photo, it's a poor sign.

    I cannot see where it says anything about the parking charge - it certainly is not prominent.

    Point that out robustly in in your SA. Compare it with the Beavis sign - images available via google.
    Originally posted by KeithP
    Thanks Keith. That image is better in their WS doc as some quality has been lost in the scanning process, but it's still very small print and the charges are buried low down. In my WS I have referenced actual pictures of the signage from various positions where the car was parked and you can't see the top part of the sign let alone the small print - imagine trying to read that sign from the opposite side of the road! I also have a Beavis image in my WS, the difference is stark.

    Also just realised I haven't redacted that file properly so have deleted and redone so your link won't work.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 13th Jan 19, 5:29 PM
    • 68,624 Posts
    • 80,891 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    A sign on the opposite side of what looks like a road/carriageway would not apply to the other side anyway, if this had been a Council street. You never are expected by the Highway code or any applicable guidance/law to read signs opposite, so why would you here?
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 13th Jan 19, 5:39 PM
    • 13,685 Posts
    • 14,953 Thanks
    KeithP
    Now looking at their WS:
    www.dropbox.com/s/79owgrueyqojsso/Claimant%20Witness%20Statement%20-%20edited.pdf?dl=0

    It includes an image of a sign dated February 2014.
    How is that relevant?
    I cannot see anything that ties that image to the site in question.

    A contract signed in 2004? No updates?
    .
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 15th Jan 19, 12:56 AM
    • 68,624 Posts
    • 80,891 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I reckon this is the same place as infernouk (he won, but don't copy his defence as it was long and the Judge wasn't overly happy with it!):

    https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5549342

    Bovis Homes don't own the site now, and that thread says the houses were not even built in 2004.

    Also I think Anne Wicklow no longer works for Bovis, hence why her signature there has no date as such.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • BandB58
    • By BandB58 15th Jan 19, 7:04 PM
    • 19 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    BandB58
    Thanks for all the responses guys, hugely appreciated. I'll have a full read of the thread above as that looks to be a very similar case to mine and then I'll have a crack at my SA, which I'll share for critiqueing.
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

113Posts Today

1,194Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Now come on that's a bit unfair!!!!! I could've done a handstand (well headstand) first if you'd asked! Sheesh! https://t.co/01Pf9Z99B1

  • It isn't statistically representative true. But to say that tells us nothing isn't correct. It shows what people i? https://t.co/JBLu6Cd8a5

  • Very interesting that on my Facebook page (which tends to be more pro Brexit) the same vote, with similar number of? https://t.co/NgYxaQDCnr

  • Follow Martin