UKCPM/gladstone 2*MNPR vanishing windscreen PCN's claimform - Ltd business hire out of our vehicle - PHOENIX AVENUE, GREENWICH PENINSULA (PATROL) SE10 0ER, - WS Stage

[FTMDave]

Good grief, you've come here a bit late, haven't you?

A Witness Statement is a document that needs a bit of work doing - you can't just magic one up in 48 hours.

Anyway, we can do what we can do, so please get on with dx's suggestions above.  IMMEDIATELY.

 

 

[FTMDave]

Well you obviously need to draft a Witness Statement, sharpish.  If you can get something done by 10pm UK time this evening, I'll try to help out.

Ideas might include.

LOADING IS NOT PARKING, as Brassnecked, said, Jopson v Homeguard

CONSIDERATION & GRACE PERIODS, the short time the vehicles were there

INSUFFICIENT SIGNAGE, the fleecers have included a close up of a sign, do you have your own photos of how the signs really appeared at night?

ILLEGAL SIGNAGE, have you checked if the fleecers have planning permission for their signs?

UNFAIR TERM, the sign says nothing about how you would get this e-permit, have you looked into this?

NO KEEPER LIABILITY, you were not the driver, the fleecers mention the Protection of Freedoms Act in their WS para 27, but they have not established keeper liability under the Act as LFI explains in post 5

NO LOCUS STANDI, I haven''t got time to read through their contract with the landowner, but you need to to see if it gives them the right to bring claims under their own name as they claim in their WS para 5

DOUBLE RECOVERY, as well as allowed solicitors' costs, they have invented £70 per ticket

INTEREST, it is unreasonable for them to have delayed litigation so long and to be claiming so much interest ( @Andyorch they have gone for 10.25% interest, isn't it normally 8%?)

Edited July 31, 2023 by FTMDave
Typo

[FTMDave]

Thanks Andy.  So that's a further abuse by them.

20 hours ago, lookinforinfo said:

If you look at the agreement with the landowner-under Schedule 2 the last line states the vehicles loading or unloading are exempt from the parking rules.

Indeed!

Motorists loading / unloading their vehicle are exempt from the parking rules

20 hours ago, lookinforinfo said:

Interesting too that not a single photo has been shown of the parking signs near the van-perhaps they are not so easily read at night . I would certainly make the point that the signage visibility is still in doubt and give the driver the benefit of that doubt. If it was clearly visible, UKPC would have shown it.

I was thinking the same.  They've taken about 500,000 other photos, so why not of the signage?

As we are helping a company here, methinks it would be a good idea if someone got on with the Witness Statement this evening while someone else got themselves down to the area to photograph the signage.

The more I think about it, the more I reckon UKCPM's case is pants and the OP has a great chance of winning, however they have left everything extremely late and need to get a move on.

[FTMDave]

@citroenberlingo I've just knocked off work and am available to do some work on the WS, if you have managed to draft some sections.

[FTMDave]

CAG discourages the use of PM, as a huge part of the forum is based on users learning from others' past experiences.

Plus if you send it to me that means dx, LFI, Nicky Boy, BN, HB and the other experts are excluded.

Can you just not redact the personal info?

[FTMDave]

If anything slips through the redacting, we will make sure it is removed.

[FTMDave]

OK, your arguments are good but you jump from one to the other and back again.

Have a look at the attachment in post 110 here  https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/421775-vcs-spycar-pcn-paploc-now-claimform-no-stopping-east-midlands-airport/page/5/#comments

If it's not in post 110 it'll be a couple of posts above or below, sometimes the post count goes wonky.

Look at how Alaska101 sets out the introduction and the conclusion.  And how the clear headings show the judge instantly which legal arguments are being used.  

Alaska101's case is very different from yours, so I'm not saying to copy the legal arguments.  It's more the style I'm on about.

So in your draft WS -

You've entitled the first part INTRODUCTION  Good.  Put it in capital letters and in bold.

The next section needs to be LOADING IS NOT PARKING  Under that put paras 3, 4, 6 (don't worry about silly numbering at the moment, that can be sorted later).

NO KEEPER LIABILITY  Paras 3 (duplicated for the moment), 5, 10, 11

CONSIDERATION & GRACE PERIODS  Para 7, 8

INSUFFICIENT SIGNAGE  Para 9

UNFAIR TERM  Para 13

Para 12 has to go

Add a new section INTEREST and state that it is unreasonable for the Claimant to delay litigation for two years and then artificiality inflate their claim by claiming interest at 10.25% in their Particulars of Claim, when Section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 fix the amount as 8%.  Add that the author of the Claimant's copy & paste Witness Statement has obviously been too lazy to read the Particulars of Claim, as she too in the last line of her Witness Statement referred to the Act and 8%.

For the moment at least add a new section DOUBLE RECOVERY and copy everything from that section of Alaska101's WS.

You need to end with a STATEMENT OF TRUTH  Copy from Charlotte's or Alaska101's.

Please post up a revised draft based on the above.

What is being produced is not perfect, but is getting better bit by bit and hopefully a final version will smash the fleecers on 2 August!

 

Edited July 31, 2023 by FTMDave
Typo

[FTMDave]

Usual Night Owl deal from me - I will be on-line at 10pm UK time after work.

However, the sooner your upload a revised version the better.  There are other regulars on CAG who keep normal hours

[FTMDave]

Well, I don't know what to say really.

Yesterday you had the bones of a good WS yet today you've changed things totally and ignored the sequence of legal arguments we suggested.  I'd hoped to have had to correct a few things this evening, not chuck the whole lot in the bin.

You go on & on about there being no contract between the PPC and the landowner - when the fleecers have produced a contract.

Had you come here at least before last weekend there would have been time to rescue things, but it's far too late now.

Sorry, I'm the biggest glass-half-full person there is going, but you've made a huge mess of this and I don't see what can be done.

Edited August 1, 2023 by FTMDave
Typo

[FTMDave]

21 hours ago, FTMDave said:

Alaska101's case is very different from yours, so I'm not saying to copy the legal arguments.  It's more the style I'm on about.

So in your draft WS -

You've entitled the first part INTRODUCTION  Good.  Put it in capital letters and in bold.

The next section needs to be LOADING IS NOT PARKING  Under that put paras 3, 4, 6 (don't worry about silly numbering at the moment, that can be sorted later).

NO KEEPER LIABILITY  Paras 3 (duplicated for the moment), 5, 10, 11

CONSIDERATION & GRACE PERIODS  Para 7, 8

INSUFFICIENT SIGNAGE  Para 9

UNFAIR TERM  Para 13

Para 12 has to go

Add a new section INTEREST and state that it is unreasonable for the Claimant to delay litigation for two years and then artificiality inflate their claim by claiming interest at 10.25% in their Particulars of Claim, when Section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 fix the amount as 8%.  Add that the author of the Claimant's copy & paste Witness Statement has obviously been too lazy to read the Particulars of Claim, as she too in the last line of her Witness Statement referred to the Act and 8%.

For the moment at least add a new section DOUBLE RECOVERY and copy everything from that section of Alaska101's WS.

You need to end with a STATEMENT OF TRUTH  Copy from Charlotte's or Alaska101's.

 

[FTMDave]

@lookinforinfo I think what has gone wrong is that the OP has used the legal arguments in Alaska101's WS, despite us saying not to do so as it's a completely different case.  Alaska101's case was for stopping in a no-stopping zone at an airport, nothing at all to do with residential parking, unloading and permits.

@citroenberlingo 1.  Go back to last night's version.

2.  Make the changes I suggested above.

3.  Add all LFI's stuff under NO KEEPER LIABILITY.

4.  Make damn sure that in LOADING IS NOT PARKING you mention that in the contract between the landowner and the Claimant it is specifically mentioned that  Motorists loading / unloading their vehicle are exempt from the parking rules  This is your ace.

5.  Send the WS off and cross fingers & toes.

6.  Please learn for the future, you cannot just magic up such an important legal document in a couple of days, you have had since you filed your defence in February - six months - to work on this.

[FTMDave]

Yes!

[FTMDave]

Last night's was not perfect, but on the right lines.  If you do what I've posted immediately above, the WS will be imperfect, with repetition, but who cares, you're not a lawyer, as long as the main points are clear, you've got a good chance of winning.

Your aces are -

LOADING IS NOT PARKING  Quote their contract Motorists loading / unloading their vehicle are exempt from the parking rules  This is your ace.

NO KEEPER LIABILITY  LFI is the expert here.  Put all his suggestions.

If it all gets too much for you, just finish at this point.  These are the two main arguments.  If you have time to do the rest, even better.

Make sure you put the STATEMENT OF TRUTH at the end.

[FTMDave]

Hang on just a mo ...

[FTMDave]

Don't worry about producing a long section.  Just put.

DOUBLE RECOVERY 

XX  Under "The Claimant claims (iii)" Ms Atkinson refers to "instructing solicitors".  The claim already includes legal representative's costs at small claims.  Inventing a further £70 is a badly-concealed attempt at circumventing the small claims cap.  It is irrelevant what the Claimant's biased trade association (itself a breakaway from the British Parking Association, which dealt with appeals far too leniently for the likes of the Claimant) deem as lawful, it is the law in England & Wales which decides what is lawful.  The addition of fictitious sums to the original parking charge is also forbidden under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

[FTMDave]

I see you have sent me a private message.

From the most superficial of read throughs, what you have produced is on the right lines.

I have a massive amount on in my life today and simply cannot deal with this.  Everyone here is an unpaid volunteer giving up their free time.  You cannot expect a lengthy document like a Witness Statement to be produced in a few days - when you have had six months.

So the choice is this.

1.  Send the document as is today.

2.  Wait for us all to tidy the WS up during the day when we have time, and send it 24 hours late.

I will have some spare time later, but precisely when I don't know.

Of the two options I would recommend the second.  The court is unlikely to get too shirty about a 24-hour delay.  Unlikely - but not impossible.  Your choice.

[FTMDave]

Good move.

I have to go to my local airport now to pick up people who are staying with me - so you can imagine what that will do to free time.

They've already been delayed an hour.  It would be good if there were another couple of hours so we could work on the WS!

[FTMDave]

I've finally got some free time.

If you can, can you please post up the latest version of the document after Nicky Boy's suggestions?

 

Remember that any proof you have - of loading for example - needs to have an exhibit number, and the WS needs to refer to that exhibit number.

 

Improvements to -

CONSIDERATION & GRACE PERIODS:

24. The signage does not state the timeframe in which if a motorist does not agree with their terms and condition to leave within. The Claimant is a member of the IPC trade association which allows a "sufficient" consideration period.  The government Code of Practice, set up under the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019, allows a 5-minute period.  Time is needed to read the small print on the signage.  Both Codes of Practice allow a 10-minute grace period to exit the site.  The Claimant has not even tried to prove that the vehicles were on site for more than 15 minutes.  The vehicles entered, speedily unloaded, and left the premises well within this period.

25. The Claimant’s witness statement page 6 point 30 states that “the area was well lit” but failed to show the signage. And that “the motorist can read the signage prior to choosing to remain on the land.” But practically reading the signage takes time and the enforcement office took the pictures of the vehicle not
considering the above. The time period on photographed was of three minutes duration, that is well within the five-minute grace period that drivers are allowed to read the T&Cs and leave if they don't want to be bound by
them.

 

Improvement to -

INSUFFICIENT SIGNAGE:

26. Neither driver noticed any signs stating parking restrictions.  The Claimant has attached a large number of photographs of the incident in question, yet "strangely" has not shown any photograph of the sign at night as actually seen by the drivers.  A mock sign printed from a computer is not the same thing.  The signage visibility is still in doubt and gives the driver the benefit of that  doubt. If it was clearly visible, UKPC would have shown it.

[FTMDave]

You need to send a copy to the fleecers too.

[FTMDave]

What date is the court hearing?