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
    • Furrydog1313
    • By Furrydog1313 13th Nov 18, 7:14 PM
    • 15Posts
    • 7Thanks
    Furrydog1313
    County court business centre *Witness statement review please*
    • #1
    • 13th Nov 18, 7:14 PM
    County court business centre *Witness statement review please* 13th Nov 18 at 7:14 PM
    Good evening all,
    I have read through the newbies stickies and just want to make sure Ive understood as Im on information overload!

    A PCN was issued this year at a hotel/shop car park, the alleged contravention was parking whilst on premises however the notice to keeper shows pictures of the car only and no evidence regarding a person leaving the premises.
    All correspondance has been ignored to date and a claim form is now received for several hundred pounds.

    An Aknowledgement of Service 'AoS' has been made, I understand there is now 28 days to compile evidence and then submit via post.


    Is this correct so far? Is there anything else required that has been missed? Should a SAR be filed?


    Thank you in advance
    Last edited by Furrydog1313; 18-05-2019 at 5:24 PM. Reason: Title update
Page 1
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 13th Nov 18, 7:33 PM
    • 14,822 Posts
    • 17,080 Thanks
    KeithP
    • #2
    • 13th Nov 18, 7:33 PM
    • #2
    • 13th Nov 18, 7:33 PM
    What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?

    A Defence comes before evidence.
    .
    • Furrydog1313
    • By Furrydog1313 13th Nov 18, 7:37 PM
    • 15 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    Furrydog1313
    • #3
    • 13th Nov 18, 7:37 PM
    • #3
    • 13th Nov 18, 7:37 PM
    Issue date is 09 Nov 18

    Thanks
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 13th Nov 18, 7:43 PM
    • 14,822 Posts
    • 17,080 Thanks
    KeithP
    • #4
    • 13th Nov 18, 7:43 PM
    • #4
    • 13th Nov 18, 7:43 PM
    Issue date is 09 Nov 18
    Originally posted by Furrydog1313
    With a Claim Issue Date of 9th November, and having done the Acknowledgement of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 12th December 2018 to file your Defence.

    That's over four weeks. Loads of time to produce a perfect Defence, but don't leave it to the very last minute.


    When you are happy with the content, your Defence should be filed via email as suggested here:
    1. Print your Defence.
    2. Sign it and date it.
    3. Scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
    4. Send that pdf as an email attachment to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk
    5. Just put the claim number and the word Defence in the email title, and in the body of the email something like 'Please find my Defence attached'.
    6. Log into MCOL after a few days to see if the Claim is marked "defended". If not chase the CCBC until it is.
    7. Do not be surprised to receive a copy of the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire, they are just trying to put you under pressure.
    8. Wait for your DQ from the CCBC, or download one from the internet, and then re-read post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread to find out exactly what to do with it.
    Last edited by KeithP; 06-12-2018 at 8:21 PM.
    .
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 13th Nov 18, 7:56 PM
    • 23,429 Posts
    • 37,356 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    • #5
    • 13th Nov 18, 7:56 PM
    • #5
    • 13th Nov 18, 7:56 PM
    Which parking company?

    Which solicitors?
    Please note, we are not a legal, residential or credit advice forum, rather one that helps motorists fight private parking charges, primarily at the 'front-end' of the process.
    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day;
    show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • Furrydog1313
    • By Furrydog1313 14th Nov 18, 11:36 AM
    • 15 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    Furrydog1313
    • #6
    • 14th Nov 18, 11:36 AM
    • #6
    • 14th Nov 18, 11:36 AM
    Euro Parking Services

    Gladstones

    Thanks
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 14th Nov 18, 11:56 AM
    • 13,115 Posts
    • 13,447 Thanks
    The Deep
    • #7
    • 14th Nov 18, 11:56 AM
    • #7
    • 14th Nov 18, 11:56 AM
    Leaving site claims are almost impossible for a PPC to win at court, proof of leaving site, mitigation of loss, and perhaps even The Human Rights Actn all stack up against them. Read this

    http://parkingfine-appeals.co.uk/vehicle-control-services-ltd/.

    a claim form is now received for several hundred pounds.

    Even in the extremely unlikely event of them winning their claim, this as far more than the law allows, the most a judge is likely to award would be iro £175 - 200. The rest is scam money. The solicitors know this, but continue to try their luck.

    IMO this is tantamount to fraud and I urge you to report them to their regulatory body, the SRA

    http://www.sra.org.uk/home/home.page

    This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of alleged contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors.

    Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and others have already been named and shamed in the House of Commons as have Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each week, hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned. They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

    The problem has become so widespread that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. It has even been suggested that some of these companies have links with organised crime.

    Watch the video of the Second Reading and committee stage in the House of Commons recently. MPs have a very low opinion of this industry.

    http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41

    https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-07-19/debates/2b90805c-bff8-4707-8bdc-b0bfae5a7ad5/Parking(CodeOfPractice)Bill(FirstSitting)

    and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind they will be out of business by in the not too distant future..and to your MP.
    Last edited by The Deep; 14-11-2018 at 11:59 AM.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • Furrydog1313
    • By Furrydog1313 14th Nov 18, 4:41 PM
    • 15 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    Furrydog1313
    • #8
    • 14th Nov 18, 4:41 PM
    • #8
    • 14th Nov 18, 4:41 PM
    Thank you for the assistance so far, I will write my defence and post on here if that's ok for critique, obviously without details.
    • Fruitcake
    • By Fruitcake 14th Nov 18, 4:54 PM
    • 39,606 Posts
    • 88,347 Thanks
    Fruitcake
    • #9
    • 14th Nov 18, 4:54 PM
    • #9
    • 14th Nov 18, 4:54 PM
    Start by reading post 2 of the NEWBIES which has a step by step guide to court.
    I married my cousin. I had to...
    I don't have a sister.

    All my screwdrivers are cordless.
    "You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks
    • Furrydog1313
    • By Furrydog1313 27th Nov 18, 1:18 PM
    • 15 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    Furrydog1313
    Hi to all and thanks in advance for reading my post.

    Ive spent time reading similar cases and defences and have drafted the below. I have a couple of weeks before my defence needs to be submitted.


    I have drafted a defence based on;
    1) Signage (poor font size, lacking in number, open to misinterpretation)
    2) A forbidding term cannot also constitue an offer
    3) No evidence of occupants leaving site
    4) No boundary identified by map/signage


    The PoC stated 'The driver of the vehicle registration XXXXX (the vehicle) incurred the parking charge (s) on XXXXXX for breaching the terms of parking on the land at Lidl& Travelodge
    The defendant was driving the vehicle and/or is the keeper of the vehicle. AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS
    £160 for parking charges/Damages and indemnity costs if applicable, together with an interest of £XX pursuant to S69 of County courts act 1984 at X% pa, continuing to judgement at £XX per day.


    I have removed apostrophes as I believe theres a glitch that makes difficult reading. I understand what I have put in the defence and have read the associated references, I wonder if you would be so kind as to review and offer any builds?

    IN THE COUNTY COURT

    CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

    BETWEEN:

    Euro Parking Services LTD (Claimant)

    -and-

    xxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)

    ________________________________________
    DEFENCE
    ________________________________________



    1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

    2. The facts are that the vehicle, registration XXXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked on the material date at the Lidl/Travelodge car park, Postcode XXXX, for a period of approx. 30 minutes.

    3. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant XXXXX was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle XXXXXX. 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. 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.

    4. Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct. The Defendant reserves the right to seek from the Court permission to serve an Amended Defence should the Claimant add to or expand his Particulars at a later stage of these proceedings and/or to limit the Claimant only to the unevidenced allegations in the Particulars.

    5. It is denied that the claimants signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them. Upon a subsequent visit to the site it is apparent that the Claimants signage was deficient in quantity with terms displayed in a font which is too small, include wording open to misinterpretation and are in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily.
    It is, therefore, denied that the Claimants signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

    6.Further it is trite law that a term that is forbidding cannot also constitute an offer. It is therefore denied that any contract was formed or was capable of being formed. The sign wording states that Lidl customers: 90 minutes maximum stay whilst you remain on the premises this is unclear, ambiguous and fails the red hand rule; as set down by Lord Denning or the test set in Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking. The signs in ParkingEye v Beavis were clear and unambiguous unlike the claimants. Therefore, drivers would have little knowledge of these hidden terms.

    7. The signage does not demonstrate a map/boundary line or clear definition of the premises. The IPC code of Practice, of which the claimant is a member, states on this point:
    2.1 Where the basis of your parking charges is based in the law of contract it will usually be by way of the driver of a vehicle agreeing to contractual terms identified by signage in and around a controlled zone. 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. Similarly, where charges are founded in the law of trespass and form liquidated damages, these too must be communicated to drivers in the same way.

    8. The claimants Notice to Keeper indicates the Reason for Issue as Parking for Patrons whilst on the premises only. The claimant is put to strict proof to demonstrate with video or photographic evidence that the occupant(s) of the vehicle crossed a clearly defined boundary of the premises.

    9. Should the claimant rely on the case of ParkingEye v Beavis, the defendant wishes to point out that there is a test of good faith.
    Para 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.

    10. 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 are used to form contracts. It says:
    2.1 Where the basis of your parking charges is based in the law of contract it will usually be by way of the driver of a vehicle agreeing to contractual terms identified by signage in and around a controlled zone. 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. Similarly, where charges are founded in the law of trespass and form liquidated damages, these too must be communicated to drivers in the same way.
    2.2 Signs must conform to the requirements as set out in a schedule 1 to the Code

    11. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

    12. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 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. The claim includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

    13. If in the alternative it is the claimants case that his claim is founded in trespass (which is in any event denied) then in a car park setting any damages in trespass can only be assessed based on a calculation of the proportion of income lost based on the time of the alleged occupation. Any sum sought could therefore only be minimal and de-minimis.

    14. That the amount demanded is therefore excessive and unconscionable and especially so when compared to the level of Penalty Charge Notice issued by the local Council which is set at £50 or £25 if paid within 14 days.

    15. In summary, it is the Defendants position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

    I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

    Name
    Signature
    Date

    Once again thanks for the support of this site.
    Last edited by Furrydog1313; 27-11-2018 at 8:19 PM. Reason: Missed detail.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 27th Nov 18, 8:02 PM
    • 72,324 Posts
    • 84,631 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Remove the words immediately after:

    To refresh on the background:
    Because you simply cannot say that on an open forum. PPC scum read these threads and use them against people.
    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
    • Furrydog1313
    • By Furrydog1313 27th Nov 18, 8:20 PM
    • 15 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    Furrydog1313
    Done, thank you Coupon-mad.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 27th Nov 18, 8:24 PM
    • 72,324 Posts
    • 84,631 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I think #7 and #8 need swapping, as you talk about 'no boundary' before you even tell the Judge what the PCN is about.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 27-11-2018 at 8:37 PM.
    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
    • Furrydog1313
    • By Furrydog1313 27th Nov 18, 8:35 PM
    • 15 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    Furrydog1313
    Swapped 7 and 8 as suggested, thanks.


    Is there anything else recommended?


    IN THE COUNTY COURT

    CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

    BETWEEN:

    Euro Parking Services LTD (Claimant)

    -and-

    xxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)

    ________________________________________
    DEFENCE
    ________________________________________



    1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

    2. The facts are that the vehicle, registration XXXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked on the material date at the Lidl/Travelodge car park, Postcode XXXX, for a period of approx. 30 minutes.

    3. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant XXXXX was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle XXXXXX. 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. 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.

    4. Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct. The Defendant reserves the right to seek from the Court permission to serve an Amended Defence should the Claimant add to or expand his Particulars at a later stage of these proceedings and/or to limit the Claimant only to the unevidenced allegations in the Particulars.

    5. It is denied that the claimants signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them. Upon a subsequent visit to the site it is apparent that the Claimants signage was deficient in quantity with terms displayed in a font which is too small, include statements open to misinterpretation and are in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily.
    It is, therefore, denied that the Claimants signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

    6.Further it is trite law that a term that is forbidding cannot also constitute an offer. It is therefore denied that any contract was formed or was capable of being formed. The sign wording states that Lidl customers: 90 minutes maximum stay whilst you remain on the premises this is unclear, ambiguous and fails the red hand rule; as set down by Lord Denning or the test set in Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking. The signs in ParkingEye v Beavis were clear and unambiguous unlike the claimants. Therefore, drivers would have little knowledge of these hidden terms.

    7. The claimants Notice to Keeper indicates the Reason for Issue as Parking for Patrons whilst on the premises only. The claimant is put to strict proof to demonstrate with video or photographic evidence that the occupant(s) of the vehicle crossed a clearly defined boundary of the premises.

    8. The signage does not demonstrate a map/boundary line or clear definition of the premises. The IPC code of Practice, of which the claimant is a member, states on this point:
    2.1 Where the basis of your parking charges is based in the law of contract it will usually be by way of the driver of a vehicle agreeing to contractual terms identified by signage in and around a controlled zone. 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. Similarly, where charges are founded in the law of trespass and form liquidated damages, these too must be communicated to drivers in the same way.

    9. Should the claimant rely on the case of ParkingEye v Beavis, the defendant wishes to point out that there is a test of good faith.
    Para 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.

    10. 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 are used to form contracts. It says:
    2.1 Where the basis of your parking charges is based in the law of contract it will usually be by way of the driver of a vehicle agreeing to contractual terms identified by signage in and around a controlled zone. 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. Similarly, where charges are founded in the law of trespass and form liquidated damages, these too must be communicated to drivers in the same way.
    2.2 Signs must conform to the requirements as set out in a schedule 1 to the Code

    11. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

    12. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 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. The claim includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

    13. If in the alternative it is the claimants case that his claim is founded in trespass (which is in any event denied) then in a car park setting any damages in trespass can only be assessed based on a calculation of the proportion of income lost based on the time of the alleged occupation. Any sum sought could therefore only be minimal and de-minimis.

    14. That the amount demanded is therefore excessive and unconscionable and especially so when compared to the level of Penalty Charge Notice issued by the local Council which is set at £50 or £25 if paid within 14 days.

    15. In summary, it is the Defendants position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

    I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

    Name
    Signature
    Date
    Last edited by Furrydog1313; 27-11-2018 at 8:47 PM.
    • Furrydog1313
    • By Furrydog1313 6th Dec 18, 8:11 PM
    • 15 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    Furrydog1313
    Good evening
    Quick question, with regard to my defence.
    I have read differing advice with regard to quoting other cases, some recommend it to be done and others have stated its poor form for a defence.

    And so I ask what is the best advice?

    I have read bargepoles thread regarding writing a concise defence but also read that you should mention anything you will later use for WS/SA.

    Apologies if Im overthinking this.

    Thanks
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 6th Dec 18, 8:56 PM
    • 23,429 Posts
    • 37,356 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    I'd follow bargepole - he is the most experienced, legally qualified in private parking cases. Coupon-mad is always to listen to, but others (I include myself), despite best intentions, are mainly offering personal views. Most of us will be there or there abouts, but reading/taking the main peoples' advice should be your priority.

    Hope that doesn't cut across any of the other regulars - apologies if it does, my views are put forward in good faith to help the OP see his/her way through this maze!
    Please note, we are not a legal, residential or credit advice forum, rather one that helps motorists fight private parking charges, primarily at the 'front-end' of the process.
    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day;
    show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • bargepole
    • By bargepole 6th Dec 18, 9:26 PM
    • 2,585 Posts
    • 7,446 Thanks
    bargepole
    Good evening
    Quick question, with regard to my defence.
    I have read differing advice with regard to quoting other cases, some recommend it to be done and others have stated its poor form for a defence.

    And so I ask what is the best advice?

    I have read bargepoles thread regarding writing a concise defence but also read that you should mention anything you will later use for WS/SA.
    Originally posted by Furrydog1313
    Conventional practice, as taught in law school, is that a Defence should be a concise summary of the facts and legal arguments you rely upon, and either admitting or denying the various elements of the Claimant's particulars.

    When the case is transferred to the local court, this is the first time that a Judge will look at it, and all he needs to see is that you have an arguable defence, he doesn't need all the detail. This Judge will issue directions for the hearing, which usually includes a direction that both parties must file and serve witness statements, with supporting evidence.

    So, for example, in your Defence you have put "6.Further it is trite law that a term that is forbidding cannot also constitute an offer. It is therefore denied that any contract was formed or was capable of being formed." That establishes that point.

    In the WS (or Skeleton, if so advised) you can expand on this with something like:

    "As asserted in para [6] of my Defence, the Claimant's signage at the material location made no offer of parking, but attempted to impose a contractual charge based on a prohibitive term. There was no offer of parking made in consideration of payment, and in the absence of offer and acceptance, no contract can be construed. The only remedy available would be a claim for damages under a tort of trespass, which could only be issued by the landowner, and in any event is not pleaded by the Claimant. This reasoning is supported by the persuasive Judgments in PCM (UK) -v- Bull & Ors, and in UKPC -v- Masterson, for which the transcripts are appended to this statement"

    This does not raise a new argument; it simply fleshes out the point already made in the Defence.

    But bear in mind that County Court decisions are only persuasive and not binding on another Judge, so you would need to establish the similarities with those cases, to suggest that your Judge should reach the same conclusion.

    I have been providing assistance, including Lay Representation at Court hearings (current score: won 36, lost 11), 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.
    • Furrydog1313
    • By Furrydog1313 7th Dec 18, 6:53 PM
    • 15 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    Furrydog1313
    Thank you for the clarification,

    With that in mind would it be practical to amend in the following way:

    Trim Paragraph 6

    Remove Paragraph 8, 9 and 10 as these can be referenced in the WS relating to paragraph 5 (signage)


    And regarding the issue of patronage is there a need at this point to reference that as I understand there would be a direct bearing on the case of trespass?

    Thank you
    • Furrydog1313
    • By Furrydog1313 16th May 19, 4:06 PM
    • 15 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    Furrydog1313
    Witness statement
    Good evening

    Could someone kindly cast an eye over what I have written so far to let me know I am on the right track for compiling a witness statement, I'm not 100% sure about the level of detail I need to include, specifically around the POFA 2012 section?

    Is it simply a mention of non compliance of the NTK with regard to POFA and to attach the schedule or detail as I have done in the interest of being open and honest with no intent to ambush as such?

    I understand there is more work to be done so it basically is a yes you are on the right track or no too much detail.


    Does there need to be a statement around the driver?


    Thanks in advance, WS example below:

    I intend to defend based on:
    i) Signage, IPC code 2.1 of which EPS is a member, beavis,evidence para 205, trite law, evidence of signs, aerial view, no signs in area parked,
    ii) POFA NTK, non compliant, maximum sum, required authorisation, no evidence shown of leaving site
    iii) PoC non compliance





    1. I am xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, the defendant in this matter. I will say as follows:
    2. I am the registered keeper of a xxxxxx.
    3. On the xxxxxxxxxxxx the vehicle was parked on the Lidl/Traveldoge Car park with the postcode reference ST5 2RS. A purchase was made in store and the receipt is evidenced as Exhibit 1.
    The signage:
    4. A bundle of paginated documents, evidenced as Exhibit xxx, demonstrate the signage
    photographed upon visiting the site. The signage photographed is that of the entrance
    and that around the car park as well as an aerial view sourced from Google Street maps where I have indicated positioning of such signage.

    5. The entrance sign can be seen on the opposite side of the road to the driver and upon the approach to the car park is a pedestrian crossing, there have been additional signs placed upon the site demonstrated by a subsequent visit in November 2018 (photograph)

    6. As asserted in para [6] of my Defence, the Claimant's signage at the material location made no offer of parking, but attempted to impose a contractual charge based on a prohibitive term. There was no offer of parking made in consideration of payment, and in the absence of offer and acceptance, no contract can be construed. The only remedy available would be a claim for damages under a tort of trespass, which could only be issued by the landowner, and in any event is not pleaded by the Claimant. This reasoning is supported by the persuasive Judgments in PCM (UK) -v- Bull & Ors, and in UKPC -v- Masterson, for which the transcripts are appended to this statement.
    PCM (UK) -v- Bull & Ors transcript is evidenced as Exhibit x
    UKPC -v- Masterson transcript is evidenced as Exhibit x



    Protection of Freedom Act 2012 non-compliance:

    7. I received a Notice to Keeper, date of sending shown as xxxxxxxxxx, which states: ‘NAME AND ADDRESS OF SITE: Lidl & Travelodge, ST5 2RN REASON FOR ISSUE: Parking for patrons whilst on the premises only’. The Notice to keeper is evidenced as Exhibit xxxxx.

    8. The Notice to Keeper does not meet the requirements of The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, for the following reasons:
    a. Paragraph 8, Section 2 (a) ‘the relevant land on which it was parked’ as the incorrect Address is used therefore this does not describe the relevant land. The postcode of the site is ST5 2RS and not ST5 2RN as evidenced in Exhibit 3.
    b. Paragraph 8, Section 2 (a) ‘and the period of parking to which the notice relates’ the notice to keeper shows two black and white photographs, the first photograph does not show a legible date and time stamp, the second photograph displays a date and time stamp of xxxxxxxxxx, no other time periods within the notice to keeper are set out therefore the period of parking is not demonstrated.
    The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 is supplied for reference as Exhibit xx.

    9. I received a Final Reminder, date of sending shown as xxxxxxxxxxxx, which states: ‘NAME AND ADDRESS OF SITE: Lidl & Travelodge, ST5 2RN REASON FOR ISSUE: Parking for patrons whilst on the premises only’. As detailed in point 5 (a) the incorrect address is used. The final Reminder is evidenced as Exhibit xxxx.

    10. The Final reminder shows two colour photographs, the first photograph displays a date and time stamp of xxxxxxxxxx, the second photograph displays a date and time stamp of xxxxxxxxxx, a period of xxx seconds. Neither the Notice to Keeper or the Final Reminder demonstrate any evidence of Patrons not being on the premises.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 16th May 19, 4:23 PM
    • 72,324 Posts
    • 84,631 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I think your final sentence should be the first thing you say after #1 and #2. No evidence = no cause of action.

    Is it simply a mention of non compliance of the NTK with regard to POFA and to attach the schedule or detail as I have done in the interest of being open and honest with no intent to ambush as such?
    Yes, but be aware the Judge might ask 'were you driving' (they shouldn't really, but they might).

    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
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

2,598Posts Today

5,212Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Mini MSE is on half term next week, so I'm excited to be taking the week off to be daddy. As normal I'm signing of? https://t.co/G3366shWh1

  • I once blurted out on @gmb "Theresa May hasn't been given a poisoned chalice - she's been given a poisoned chalice? https://t.co/onfRbY3XVg

  • It'd be fascinating to know how history will judge Theresa May's premiership. Currently, it is hard to see it as a? https://t.co/eH77G0O9LA

  • Follow Martin