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
    • cristalfiona
    • By cristalfiona 14th Nov 18, 10:15 AM
    • 197Posts
    • 3,588Thanks
    cristalfiona
    ES/Gladstones LBC/claim form
    • #1
    • 14th Nov 18, 10:15 AM
    ES/Gladstones LBC/claim form 14th Nov 18 at 10:15 AM
    Hello all, I hope you can help. And sorry this is so long! I wanted to get all of the information in together if possible.

    The date of the alleged offence, as per the LBC and claim form was 3rd Feb this year, which was a Saturday. The location of the parking area is an apron in front of the building the driver used to work in. The driver typically worked Mon-Fri, using another car park when required, and would only have used this apron for out of hours working. The parking area requires a permit, and I assume this is the basis they’re claiming on, though it doesn’t specify on the claim form. The company only had 2 passes for contractors/out-of-hours staff, so anyone using the parking area had to park their car, then go into the office and collect the pass and place it in their windscreen. They would then have had to reverse the process when leaving. On the day in question, no PCN was left on the vehicle, and no NTK was ever received by myself.


    I received the LBC through the post in September (while I was away), however having received nothing before it, when I came back I thought it was junk and did nothing about it and have now received the claim form. The claim form is dated 2nd Nov. I have done the AOS and now need to build my defence.


    After receiving the claim form, I visited the building to take pictures. I expected to have seen cameras due to the lack of PCN (as I never received the NTK I have no idea how any photos of the car would have been taken), but there were none. Unless they have since been removed (unlikely!), this means that any photos were taken by a person, in the few minutes the driver was in the building either retrieving or returning the pass. This must have been done very swiftly as the parking officer was gone before the driver returned to the car (likely the reason for lack of PCN).
    The Particulars of Claim box states “The driver of the vehicle registration XXX incurred the parking charge(s) on [date] for breaching the terms of parking at [place]. 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 interest of £8.39 pursuant to s69 of the Count Courts Act 1984 at 8%pa, continuing to Judgment at £0.04 per day.” It’s ES Parking Enforcement Ltd and Gladstones.


    Does anyone have any advice on what defence to use? Can I use the fact that no notice to keeper was ever received and the first I heard of it was the solicitor’s letter in September, more than 7 months after the alleged offence? Or the vague claim details on the claim form? I’m unsure if signage would be a possible one, I need to go back and take more pictures from where the car would probably have been.
    As I haven’t received an NTK, should I put in an SAR to see the photos etc (even though I am unlikely to receive it before putting in my defence)? As I currently have no idea what they have in terms of photos or evidence.


    It is possible the driver’s boss could be convinced to make a statement re the parking permit situation, but anything involving the building owner is a no-go. And would it be better to put in a driver defence/witness statement so that the driver can provide information on what happened? Although the driver cannot remember the day in question as the parking was completely uneventful from their point of view and was now more than half a year ago.


    TIA for any help!
    Last edited by cristalfiona; 14-11-2018 at 11:31 AM. Reason: clarification
Page 1
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 14th Nov 18, 10:49 AM
    • 12,660 Posts
    • 12,888 Thanks
    The Deep
    • #2
    • 14th Nov 18, 10:49 AM
    • #2
    • 14th Nov 18, 10:49 AM
    If they are claiming more than £200 then they are most likely trying to defraud you. If they took you to court and won, 2the most that a judge is likely to award should not exceed that figure. They know this but try to get more by threatening CCJs, etc, many people believe their hreats and pay up.

    If this is the case, I urge you to complain to their regulatory body, the SRA

    please read their Code of Conduct here

    http://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/handbook/code/content.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.
    Last edited by The Deep; 14-11-2018 at 10:52 AM.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 14th Nov 18, 12:26 PM
    • 14,345 Posts
    • 16,325 Thanks
    KeithP
    • #3
    • 14th Nov 18, 12:26 PM
    • #3
    • 14th Nov 18, 12:26 PM
    The claim form is dated 2nd Nov. I have done the AOS and now need to build my defence.
    Originally posted by cristalfiona
    With a Claim Issue Date of 2nd November, and having done the Acknowledgement of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 5th December 2018 to file your Defence.

    That's three 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; 03-12-2018 at 12:10 PM.
    .
    • cristalfiona
    • By cristalfiona 27th Nov 18, 1:47 PM
    • 197 Posts
    • 3,588 Thanks
    cristalfiona
    • #4
    • 27th Nov 18, 1:47 PM
    • #4
    • 27th Nov 18, 1:47 PM
    I'm in the middle of drafting my defence at the moment. I have points for the lack of NtK/NtD and lack of time allowed for collection of the temporary permit. I have 4 questions regarding the signs, which can be found here:


    http://tinypic.com/usermedia.php?uo=NuVqmz...0oJ7Yh4l5k2TGxc

    http://tinypic.com/usermedia.php?uo=NuVqmz...xzuBIh4l5k2TGxc

    http://tinypic.com/usermedia.php?uo=NuVqmz...J4Vy4h4l5k2TGxc

    1. Is this a forbidding sign?
    2. The amounts (£90 and £50) on the large sign don't match the amount on the claim form (£160), can I put in a point regarding this and if so what should it say?
    3. Is the black and white sign too small and illegible, and is this valid if the other one is legible? If not can I claim the signs having conflicting info (where legible) particularly regarding the amounts as above?
    4. Do the signs imply they are managed by two different companies, leading to confusion to persons using the parking area?

    Also is there anything to go on regarding the fact there are no marked parking bays?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 27th Nov 18, 8:51 PM
    • 70,394 Posts
    • 82,985 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #5
    • 27th Nov 18, 8:51 PM
    • #5
    • 27th Nov 18, 8:51 PM
    1. Is this a forbidding sign?
    Yes, the ES Parking one makes an offer to permit holders only, and not to the general public with no permit.

    2. The amounts (£90 and £50) on the large sign don't match the amount on the claim form (£160), can I put in a point regarding this and if so what should it say?
    The sign saying £90 and £55 is the CMS (wrong PPC) sign.

    The ES Parking one says £100 and as a standard scam, £60 that was never incurred, has been added as per usual on the claim form as 'indemnity costs if applicable' You can find endless Gladstones threads going back all year that cover that!

    3. Is the black and white sign too small and illegible, and is this valid if the other one is legible? If not can I claim the signs having conflicting info (where legible) particularly regarding the amounts as above?
    They are all far to high, and in such small print as to be unreadable - and the fact there are mixed companies offering different terms and charging different penalties, makes any charge void for uncertainty.

    4. Do the signs imply they are managed by two different companies, leading to confusion to persons using the parking area?
    Yes and that is MASSIVE and likely to win the case for you at a hearing.

    Also is there anything to go on regarding the fact there are no marked parking bays?
    Yes, it shows the uncertainty of the t&cs.

    Even if the signs could be read how on earth can a driver know which sign applies, and which company of the two, if offering a contract? Impossible, a real dog's dinner!
    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
    • cristalfiona
    • By cristalfiona 3rd Dec 18, 9:40 AM
    • 197 Posts
    • 3,588 Thanks
    cristalfiona
    • #6
    • 3rd Dec 18, 9:40 AM
    • #6
    • 3rd Dec 18, 9:40 AM
    I have drafted my defence and would appreciate it if anyone could look it over and suggest any necessary changes.


    IN THE COUNTY COURT

    CLAIM No: CXXXXXX

    BETWEEN:

    Es Parking Enforcement Limited (Claimant)

    -and-

    XXXXXXXX (Defendant)
    1. It is admitted that the defendant, Miss XXXXXX XXXXX, residing at xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx is the registered keeper of the vehicle.

    2. The defendant holds no keeper liability as no Notice to Keeper was ever received, either as a Notice to Driver on the vehicle during the alleged breach of parking, or in the post afterwards.

    2. (i) As such, the Letter before Court was dismissed as junk mail when received from a company the Defendant had never heard of regarding an alleged parking offence the Defendant had no prior knowledge of.
    3. The defendant claims there was no breach as the driver only had access to a temporary permit, requiring collection from inside the building. As the issuer of these permits, the claimant should be aware of this.
    3. (i) There was no breach of the terms of parking as the permit was collected and displayed as soon as reasonably possible after parking. The claimant did not allow a necessary and required period of time for collection and return of the temporary permit.
    4. The signage displayed only makes an 'offer of parking' to permit holders, and therefore only permit holders can be potentially bound by the contractual terms conveyed (and only if the terms were clear and prominent as adequate notice of the charge, which is denied).
    4. (i) The signage on this site is inadequate to form a contract. The terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a vehicle parking in the area covered by the signage, and is 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 Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.
    5. Notwithstanding the provisions of the POFA and/or the existing easements, rights of way and the permit agreement already concluded, it is denied that the signs used by this claimant can have created a fair or transparent contract with a driver in any event.
    5. (i) The claimant’s sign makes an offer of parking to permit holders only and not to the general public and is therefore a forbidding sign.
    6. There is signage on display in the parking area from two different companies offering different terms and charging different penalties. This implies management of the parkin g area by two different companies, causing confusion for persons using the parking area.
    7. The claimant’s sign states that vehicles must be parked wholly within a bay, however there are no bays within the parking area. This proves the uncertainty of the small part of the terms and conditions that can be read. The signage displayed information which is incorrect of the private parking area being managed by the claimant whereby there were no parking bays at all visible.
    8. 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.
    9. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle(s). 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.
    9. (i) 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.
    10. It is denied that any 'parking charges or indemnity costs' (whatever they might be) are owed and any debt is denied in its entirety. This is a completely unsubstantiated and inflated three-figure sum, vaguely and incoherently adduced by the claimant's solicitors. Nor are any clear times/dates or coherent grounds for any lawful claim particularised, nor were any details provided to evidence any contract created nor any copy of this contract, nor explanation for the vague description 'parking charges' and 'indemnity costs'. 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. The Particulars are not clear and concise, so I have had to cover all eventualities in defending a 'cut & paste' claim. This has caused significant distress and has denied me a fair chance to defend this claim in an informed way.
    11. The Claimant has artificially inflated the value of the Claim to an unconscionably high three-figure sum. The Defendant submits the £60 of added 'indemnity' costs has not actually been incurred by the Claimant and that this is an abuse of process, being an attempt to achieve double recovery, in a parking charge case where the sum of £100 is already artificially high, in order to more then comfortably cover the minor costs of operating a low-cost/template letter parking scheme. There have been no damages or further expenditure.
    12. 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 their significant detriment as an unrepresented Defendant.
    13. No evidence has been supplied by this claimant as to who parked the vehicle. Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 there is no presumption in law as to who parked a vehicle on private land nor does there exist any obligation for a keeper to name a driver. I choose to defend this claim as the registered keeper, as is my right.
    14. It is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant (if any debt exists, which is denied) would be the landowner.
    15. Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 (POFA), a registered keeper can only be held liable for the sum in any compliant 'Notice to Keeper'. This depends upon the Claimant fully complying with the statute, including 'adequate notice' of the parking charge and prescribed documents served in time/with mandatory wording. It is submitted the claimant has failed on all counts due to providing no Notice to Keeper, either on the day in question or following this.
    16. It is not believed that the Claimant has incurred additional costs - be it legal or debt collector costs and they are put to strict proof that they have actually incurred and can lawfully add any extra sums and that those sums formed part of the permit/parking contract formed with the permit holder in the first instance.
    18. It is denied that any "parking charges / damages and indemnity costs" (whatever they might be) as stated on the Particulars of Claim are owed and any debt is denied in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts claimed due to the aforementioned reasons.

    I believe the facts contained in this Defence Statement are true.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 3rd Dec 18, 11:16 AM
    • 70,394 Posts
    • 82,985 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #7
    • 3rd Dec 18, 11:16 AM
    • #7
    • 3rd Dec 18, 11:16 AM
    You need the heading 'DEFENCE'.

    Remove your name and address (your name is already in the heading):

    , Miss XXXXXX XXXXX, residing at xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
    Grammar alert - never end a sentence (see 2.i) with the word 'of'. It's ugly and wrong!

    And I would change this as shown:
    As the issuer of these permits, the claimant should allow a period of grace to cover the necessity and expectation that visiting drivers will have to enter the premises to fetch a permit. Such drivers do not arrive with a permit in their hands, and this activity can take several minutes after arrival, given the layout and nature of the premises.
    And maybe change this as shown:
    6. There is signage on display in the parking area from two different companies offering different terms and charging different penalties, albeit the small print of neither sign is actually legible. This implies management of the parking area by two different companies, causing causes significant confusion for persons using the parking area, fails to meet the level of expected signage required in the IPC Code of Practice regulatory framework, and voids even the most basic requirements of clarity and transparency in any consumer contract; not just regarding the terms that apply, but muddying the waters as regards which party is offering any contract.
    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
    • cristalfiona
    • By cristalfiona 3rd Dec 18, 12:18 PM
    • 197 Posts
    • 3,588 Thanks
    cristalfiona
    • #8
    • 3rd Dec 18, 12:18 PM
    • #8
    • 3rd Dec 18, 12:18 PM
    Thanks for your help Coupon-mad. I've made the suggested changes and below is the new version.


    DEFENCE

    IN THE COUNTY COURT

    CLAIM No: CXXXXXX

    BETWEEN:

    Es Parking Enforcement Limited (Claimant)

    -and-

    XXXXXXXX (Defendant)
    1. It is admitted that the defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle.

    2. The defendant holds no keeper liability as no Notice to Driver was ever issued and then passed to the Keeper, and no Notice to Keeper was received via post subsequent to the event.

    2. (i) As such, the Letter before Claim was dismissed as junk mail when received from a company the Defendant had never heard of regarding an alleged parking offence of which the Defendant had no prior knowledge.
    3. The defendant claims there was no breach as the driver only had access to a temporary permit, requiring collection from inside the building. As the issuer of these permits, the claimant should allow a period of grace to cover the necessity and expectation that visiting drivers will have to enter the premises to fetch a permit. Such drivers do not arrive with a permit in their hands, and this activity can take several minutes after arrival, given the layout and nature of the premises.
    4. The signage displayed only makes an 'offer of parking' to permit holders, and therefore only permit holders can be potentially bound by the contractual terms conveyed (and only if the terms were clear and prominent as adequate notice of the charge, which is denied).
    4. (i) The signage on this site is inadequate to form a contract. The terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a vehicle parking in the area covered by the signage, and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. As stated by Lord Denning, then Master of the Rolls in Thornton vs Shoe Lane Parking (1970) EWCA and also by Denning LJ, in J Spurling Ltd vs Bradshaw (1956) EWCA, onerous contractual clauses should be prominently displayed - the famous "Red Hand rule". It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.
    5. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) and/or the existing easements, rights of way and the permit agreement already concluded, it is denied that the signs used by this claimant can have created a fair or transparent contract with a driver in any event.
    5. (i) The claimant’s sign makes an offer of parking to permit holders only and not to the general public and is therefore a forbidding sign.
    6. There is signage on display in the parking area from two different companies offering different terms and charging different penalties, albeit the small print of neither sign is actually legible. This causes significant confusion for persons using the parking area, fails to meet the level of expected signage required in the IPC Code of Practice regulatory framework, and voids even the most basic requirements of clarity and transparency in any consumer contract; not just regarding the terms that apply, but muddying the waters as regards which party is offering any contract.
    7. The claimant’s sign states that vehicles must be parked wholly within a bay, however there are no bays within the parking area. This proves the uncertainty of the small part of the terms and conditions that can be read. The signage displayed information which is incorrect of the private parking area being managed by the claimant whereby there were no parking bays at all visible.
    8. 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.
    9. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle(s). 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.
    9. (i) 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.
    10. It is denied that any 'parking charges or indemnity costs' (whatever they might be) are owed and any debt is denied in its entirety. This is a completely unsubstantiated and inflated three-figure sum, vaguely and incoherently adduced by the claimant's solicitors. Nor are any clear times/dates or coherent grounds for any lawful claim particularised, nor were any details provided to evidence any contract created nor any copy of this contract, nor explanation for the vague description 'parking charges' and 'indemnity costs'. 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. The Particulars are not clear and concise, so I have had to cover all eventualities in defending a 'cut & paste' claim. This has caused significant distress and has denied me a fair chance to defend this claim in an informed way.
    11. The Claimant has artificially inflated the value of the Claim to an unconscionably high three-figure sum. The Defendant submits the £60 of added 'indemnity' costs has not actually been incurred by the Claimant and that this is an abuse of process, being an attempt to achieve double recovery, in a parking charge case where the sum of £100 is already artificially high, in order to more than comfortably cover the minor costs of operating a low-cost/template letter parking scheme. There have been no damages or further expenditure.
    12. 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 their significant detriment as an unrepresented Defendant.
    13. No evidence has been supplied by this claimant as to who parked the vehicle. Under POFA 2012 there is no presumption in law as to who parked a vehicle on private land nor does there exist any obligation for a keeper to name a driver. I choose to defend this claim as the registered keeper, as is my right.
    14. It is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant (if any debt exists, which is denied) would be the landowner.
    15. Under the POFA 2012, Schedule 4 a registered keeper can only be held liable for the sum in any compliant 'Notice to Keeper'. This depends upon the Claimant fully complying with the statute, including 'adequate notice' of the parking charge and prescribed documents served in time/with mandatory wording. It is submitted the claimant has failed on all counts due to providing no Notice to Keeper, either on the day in question or following this.
    16. It is not believed that the Claimant has incurred additional costs - be it legal or debt collector costs and they are put to strict proof that they have actually incurred and can lawfully add any extra sums and that those sums formed part of the permit/parking contract formed with the permit holder in the first instance.
    18. It is denied that any "parking charges / damages and indemnity costs" (whatever they might be) as stated on the Particulars of Claim are owed and any debt is denied in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts claimed due to the aforementioned reasons.

    I believe the facts contained in this Defence Statement are true.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 3rd Dec 18, 12:47 PM
    • 70,394 Posts
    • 82,985 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #9
    • 3rd Dec 18, 12:47 PM
    • #9
    • 3rd Dec 18, 12:47 PM
    I think it's ES that has a flawed landowner contract that requires the 'client' (landowner!) to display a permit, not drivers. As such, add this:

    14. It is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant (if any debt exists, which is denied) would be the landowner. Even if the Claimant has a contract with the landowner it is averred that it places no 'relevant obligation' (POFA wording) upon drivers to display a permit at all, and in any case, it must have been in the contemplation of the client that drivers would need a grace period to fetch permits before being penalised.
    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
    • cristalfiona
    • By cristalfiona 3rd Dec 18, 3:39 PM
    • 197 Posts
    • 3,588 Thanks
    cristalfiona
    Thanks Coupon-mad, I've changed that clause. I'll leave it until tomorrow morning in case anyone has any further comments and if not I'll get it emailed over.
    • cristalfiona
    • By cristalfiona 15th Apr 19, 9:58 AM
    • 197 Posts
    • 3,588 Thanks
    cristalfiona
    Hello again all,



    So I submitted my defense, was allocated to my local court and I'm just in the process of writing my witness statement. It currently reads as follows (I need to check the dates against the paperwork, which is why they're currently blank):



    In the County Court at xxxxxx
    Claim No. xxxx
    Between XXX (Claimant)
    and
    xxxxxx (Defendant)
    Witness Statement of [me], of [my address].
    I am the Defendant in this matter. Any evidence in the my statement will be referred to the attached documents as Exhibit 01, Exhibit 02 and so on.
    I am the registered keeper of a [make and model] registration [reg no].
    The parking event took place on xxth February 2018; in view of the fact that no Notice to Keeper was left on the vehicle in the form of a Parking Charge Notice on the date in question and no communication was received from either the claimant or their solicitors prior to the Letter Before Claim dated xxth September 2018, it is difficult for the defendant to be clear on events for that specific day. The defendant can only specify what happened on all occasions where parking took place on the land in question. The driver worked in the building at the time, and when working regular hours during the week parked elsewhere. When working overtime hours at the weekend, the driver would park outside the building and use a temporary pass to park. As there were only two passes for the company and approx. 10 employees, several of whom would use the facilities to work extra hours, this pass had to be collected from the office when required. The driver parked on the apron in front of the building, accessed the building and then the office, collected the pass and returned to place it on the car. When leaving this process would be reversed.
    The signage at the front of the building is confusing, as there are signs displayed from two different companies, both displaying different parking conditions and penalties. These are also well above head height and in small print which is difficult to read from a vehicle parked below or on foot. The text which is legible of the claimant’s signage constitutes a forbidding sign, as no contract can be offered to the general public. Their sign states that vehicles must be parked wholly within a bay, however the attached photo clearly shows that there are no marked bays, throwing uncertainty on the whole sign as the displayed information is incorrect.

    Statement of Truth
    I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.
    Signature
    Date


    I'm going to include the following as exhibits and refer to them above: temporary passes, pictures of signage, pictures of lack of bays and Case Law PCM v Bull and UKPC vMasterson.



    I have however tried to get onto the case law pages from parking prankster and both of the links for forbidding signage are going nowhere though some other links seem to be working. Does anyone know where else I can find this or have a copy of the PDFs I could have?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 15th Apr 19, 12:14 PM
    • 70,394 Posts
    • 82,985 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    The links in the PP's case law work for me. Try a different PC/different browser.

    Your paragraphs need separating by a line space and numbering all of them.

    Have you waited till the last 48 hours in case you get the Claimant's WS and evidence and can tear it apart in your WS, which is always worth doing?
    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
    • cristalfiona
    • By cristalfiona 15th Apr 19, 1:49 PM
    • 197 Posts
    • 3,588 Thanks
    cristalfiona
    Thanks Coupon Mad, that worked after trying to reload it 3 times on the different browser. Should I pick out (highlight?) pertinent points or is that a bit too condescending to a judge? I'll do that on my own versions for reference on the day even if I shouldn't on the one submitted.


    I'll number and separate the paragraphs - wasn't too sure if I should as I'd seen both posted on here.


    I haven't yet, but I will be waiting until the last minute - my deadline is Friday, but I need to call tomorrow and check if the court's open due to it being Good Friday. If not I'll take it in on Thursday.
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 15th Apr 19, 2:36 PM
    • 14,345 Posts
    • 16,325 Thanks
    KeithP
    The court will not be open on Good Friday.
    .
    • cristalfiona
    • By cristalfiona 15th Apr 19, 3:31 PM
    • 197 Posts
    • 3,588 Thanks
    cristalfiona
    No, I didn't think it would be. I've planned for it to be ready by my lunch break on Thursday as the Court's just down the road.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 15th Apr 19, 5:43 PM
    • 70,394 Posts
    • 82,985 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Wait a day or two though in the hope the other side's template dross turns up first!
    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
    • cristalfiona
    • By cristalfiona 16th Apr 19, 1:14 PM
    • 197 Posts
    • 3,588 Thanks
    cristalfiona
    Yes, Thursday at lunch is the latest I can get it in, as the court closes before I finish for the day so that's when it's going, in the hope I'll receive theirs tomorrow.



    I'm sure when I was first researching this that I read guidelines somewhere for how to present witness statement and exhibits including what to do when taking them to the court etc, but I can't for the life of me find it in any of the links in the newbies thread now. Can anyone help?
    Last edited by cristalfiona; 16-04-2019 at 2:01 PM.
    • Le_Kirk
    • By Le_Kirk 16th Apr 19, 1:59 PM
    • 4,621 Posts
    • 3,998 Thanks
    Le_Kirk
    I'm sure when I was first researching this that I read guidelines somewhere for how to present witness statement and exhibits etc, but I can't for the life of me find it in any of the links in the newbies thread now. Can anyone help?
    Originally posted by cristalfiona
    Use the "Search this Forum" button, Advanced Search, User Name Coupon-mad and ring binder as your search term, change the radio button from threads to posts. and you will find this: -
    Your paragraphs all need numbering, as will your pages, and your evidence exhibits. You will need a contents page too, and a file or ring binder for the judge's copy so it's all nice and organised.
    ........ along with many others.
    • cristalfiona
    • By cristalfiona 17th Apr 19, 8:53 AM
    • 197 Posts
    • 3,588 Thanks
    cristalfiona
    So they've sent over their WS, it came in the post yesterday. I'm just reading through it properly now, does anyone want to help me rip it apart?



    It can be found at http://tinypic.com/useralbum.php?ua=xDroBU9Q%2BPTQxEG7%2F1WnzIh4l5k2T Gxc



    I definitely need something about grace periods - their 4 photos were taken over a span of 13 seconds in total, and they also keep mentioning a PCN number in addition to other reference numbers but none was left on the vehicle.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 17th Apr 19, 10:02 AM
    • 23,080 Posts
    • 36,666 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Tinypic doesn’t allow any image to stay open for longer than a few seconds, then it opens other tabs on the iPad and dumps all sorts of shiite on the screen.

    I no longer recommend the use of Tinypic for this forum.
    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.
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

356Posts Today

5,315Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Have a great Easter, or a chag sameach to those like me attending Passover seder tomorrow. I?m taking all of next? https://t.co/qrAFTIpqWl

  • RT @rowlyc1980: A whopping 18 days off work for only 9 days leave! I?ll have a bit of that please......thanks @MartinSLewis for your crafty?

  • RT @dinokyp: That feeling when you realise that you have 18 days of work and only used 9 days of your annual leave! Thanks @MartinSLewis h?

  • Follow Martin