Jump to content

FTMDave

Site Team
  • Posts

    7,716
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    110

FTMDave last won the day on February 29

FTMDave had the most liked content!

Reputation

2,319 Excellent

4 Followers

Recent Profile Visitors

13,497 profile views
  1. Actually there wasn't a massive amount of work to do on the WS. The "meat" was there because of the great work you'd already done. Here is a version which I think is nigh-on finished. However, with Easter there are a few days for the other regulars to suggest tweaks. Defendant WS.pdf
  2. I haven't forgotten about this. I've just done a bit of work on the WS, and will do more late this evening when I knock off work. But two questions spring to mind. Would your "jump leads" friend be prepared to write a short Witness Statement? We could even write it at this end and just ask him/her for a signature. Your inability to move the car is called Frustration of Contract and could be your ace. Secondly, did you tell UKPC about the flat battery when you appealed?
  3. It's common sense that they have a contract with the airport to manage the area. That's not in dispute. What is in dispute is that the airport has given them the authority to sue under their own name. If you really have done something bad on airport land then it is the airport who should sue. Can you upload the contract?
  4. Don't worry about the SAR for the moment, acknowledge the claim and send off the CPR request as dx says, they may reply to the CPR and send the paperwork.
  5. It's not essential, but if you have time a persuasive case for the DE MINIMIS section and including your PAPLOC letter as an exhibit in your current (5) wouldn't go amiss.
  6. Most of what they have written is waffle, but if you want you could add little bits to your WS. After your current (4) you could add 5. The Claimant is incorrect in stating in their Witness Statement (para 13) that "no payment for parking was made by the Defendant". My exhibits show that payment was made. They again state (para 22 vi) "a valid parking session was not purchased by the Defendant" which is incorrect and the Claimant knows the statement is incorrect. You could expand your current (5) to 5. The Defendant informed the Claimant during PAPLOC about the wrong registration being incorrectly entered. The Claimant can witter on all they want (their WS para 21) about their laughable appeals procedure where they judge themselves, and my "unreasonable behaviour" (para 31), but the simple fact is that they knew they were paid and they suffered no loss but decided to start a court claim anyway. You could add to your current (11) 11. 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. This was confirmed in the POPLA Annual Report 2015 by the POPLA Lead Adjudicator and barrister, Henry Greenslade, when explaining the POFA 2012 principles of 'keeper liability' as set out in Schedule 4. The Claimant (their WS, para 20) can "believe that the Defendant was the driver" all they like but such belief has no basis in law nor indeed in the opinion of their own trade association's appeals body.
  7. I can do some work on it on Friday afternoon. Normally that would mean you could get it to the court by the 4pm deadline. The problem is that Friday is a Bank Holiday and the earliest you will be able to get it to the court is Tuesday.
  8. There's no problem giving your name. You are the registered keeper and the person they sent the invoice to. Don't sign it though. No clue should be given to them at all about the identity of the driver,. I've made suggested changes in red above. Get the letter off tomorrow. I wouldn't get your hopes up too much. But nothing ventured ...
  9. That's a good start, but the WS still needs a lot of work. The problem is the lack of time. Your deadline is tomorrow. At my end a Bank Holiday means doing the work of five days in four, so the earliest I could help would be Friday. Up to you if you want to send it off tomorrow or risk sending a better version but slightly late.
  10. "We will be forced to incur further legal costs for preparation, attendance and travel, which we will seek to recover at the upcoming hearing". Absolute, total lies. Costs are capped at small claims. Very kind of them to supply extra photos - all in the name of ABC Parking Solutions Ltd Fingers crossed all goes well in Drtford.
  11. Have UKPC sent you their Witness Statement? If not, you can afford to be slightly late, they can hardly moan if they are late too.
×
×
  • Create New...