See if you're happy with this version. I've tried to cut out repetition, put the legal arguments in the right sections, and also cut out some stuff critical of UKPC but really of little bearing on whether you owe the money or not. I'd love to know how you get the paras to automatically number themselves - it would have saved me a load of work on other WSs in the past!!! Some final points. Paras 12 and 14 are in contradiction. in (12) you say the signs say "Permit Holders Only" while in (14) "The signs make no mention of the need to display permits". So which is it? We can't make out the signs apart from one which is not on your property but rather just a blow-up of a standard sign. Please address this issue. In (31) you need a new exhibit F which is attached here. If you can clear up the matter of the signs then we will be good to go. G4QZ465V Excel v Wilkinson.pdf Witness Statement 06042024a.pdf

Thanks! Onto it. I've hidden your post from spying eyes so no-one can see your personal details on the Word version.

The PoCs look damn perfect to me, and well within the MCOL limit. However, given that 24 hours will change nothing, hang on a day in case others have comments. My experience on CAG is more with the defence sort of stuff for private parking cases. There is no need for a timeline of events or evidence at this stage.

Well, fine, they can argue that in front of a judge. Please post up a draft of your PoCs. They will be very brief, just mention the work he carried out, when, where, etc., and that he hasn't been paid despite numerous reminders. In fact the PoCs have to be brief as there is a word limit on MCOL. EDIT - from the MCOL guide - The POC are restricted to 24 lines of 45 characters and a total of 1080 characters. If you type more than this the last part of your text will not appear on the claim. Please be aware that the website will only accept the following punctuation; full stop, comma, pound signs

You have to prepare Particulars of Claim which indeed will be very brief. However, judges don't take kindly to court cases being started before chances to settle the matter are exhausted. Has you husband sent them a formal Letter of Claim?

More hot air from powerless paper tigers. Use it for hamster bedding, or to play paper aeroplanes with, or a similar activity of your choice.

However, the result of your absences is that a near-perfect WS at the point of post 24 that needed just the tiniest of tweaks has now morphed into an incomprehensible mess with lots of repetition and legal arguments strewn across the wrong sections. You've added stuff I suggested early on in the discussion and ignored stuff suggested in post 24 which was much better as it included LFI's insights. Can you please upload a version in Word? This will have your personal details embedded but we can immediately delete at this end and just keep it for Site Team. With a version in Word it's just much easier to move the arguments around to the right sections and delete the repetition.

LFI, both of the NTDs and both of the NTKs are in UKPC's WS. The former are legible, the latter no. I see the OP has disappeared - again - for 24 hours despite the imminent deadline for the WS. It's pretty ridiculous Caggers posting during their work breaks to try to help given the strict deadline when the person in legal dispute is not even here.

Any update here?

Yes!

Please confirm when you have done AOS and CPR, and then we can look into how you got this PCN and how to go about fighting it.

Are you sure about? 1. The signs make no mention of the need to display permits - UKPC's WS is of such poor quality that I can't make the signs out. However, on the close-up of the standard sign there is a mention of permits half.way down where they have the four little pictures. 2. There is no location of the relevant land mentioned on the PCN at all - again, it's impossible to read what is written on the NTD or the PCN. Do they really make no mention of Eastcroft House or similar? You have to be sure about this, you don't want to undermine your own case with inaccuracies. There are some other small points re the rest of the WS but I don't want us to get lost in minutiae. Please come back to us about this, then we can add the finishing touches. In fact if you are comfortable with the changes I suggested in the last post, then please make them and then upload a new version of the WS, to avoid confusion.

The WS is very good and likely to win as it is. But if it can be tweaked and improved, why not? In Supremacy of Contract I would expand your (11) and make it into a summary/conclusion of the section. 11. I enjoy Supremacy of Contract as, when I purchased the property in 2016, the contract did not include any mention of a parking company or need to show a permit to park on my own property. i invite the court to dismiss the claim in it's entirety. In Prohibition your (12) really makes various points so the para needs to be split up and some persuasive cases added. The matter of the £90/£100 is a separate legal point. How about - 12. The PCNs state they were issued because the car was not displaying a valid permit. Yet when the Claimant shows their signage around the area of Eastcroft House all the signs state "No Unauthorised Parking" which is incapable of forming a contract because being prohibitory it offers nothing contractually to the motorist. 13. The signs make no mention of the need to display permits. 14. In the case of C5GF17X2 Horizon Parking v Mr J. Guildford 23/11/2016 where the defendant was parked in an area for permit holders only, District Judge Glen dismissed the claim “because the notice is a prohibition and claimants are not entitled to pursue for trespass, they are not the landowner.” 15. In the case of C8GF4C12 ES Parking Enforcement v Ms A. Manchester 29/11/2016 District Judge Iyer stated that the signage was forbidding, there was no mention of the word 'contract' on them. The word 'breach' was on the signage. As a result of this, the only person that could bring a claim was the landowner for trespass. The PCN 16. The Claimant's signage refers to "a £90 parking charge" yet both PCNs demand £100. 17. A charge of £100 per PCN is also the basis of the Claimant's Particulars of Claim (to which they have added a further £60 which i refer to below).

Thanks for your report back. I didn't expect that either. I expected that judgement would revolve around the fact that all the signs showed ABC instead of CEL. Seems like you got an excellent judge who had read CEL's WS in detail and realised it was rubbish - and that was enough to chuck out the claim. Well done the judge for making the Claimant suffer the consequences of not turning up in court as well.

So, ideas for your WS.. 1. Sequence of events - a brief description of how you got the invoice. 2. Insufficient signage - everything you've written about here being a dearth of signage and what there was wasn't illuminated. 3. Penalty - the charge is an unlawful penalty as your visit was at night when there was no interest in limiting the time motorists could stay. 4. Prohibition - no parking is a prohibition and no contract can be formed 5. No keeper liability - how they haven't followed POFA. 6. No locus standi - although they replied to your CPR request, they refused to produce the contract with the landowner, instead attaching a useless letter. A letter is not a contract. 7. Illegal signage - although they replied to your CPR request, they did not include proof of planning permission - because they don't have it, which is a criminal offence. 8. Abuse of process - you can copy that verbatim form Mystic Berties's thread https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/459507-ukpcdcbl-anpr-pcn-appealed-paploc-now-claimform-mcdonalds-bristol-patchway-562-bs34-5tq/page/5/#comments Add an extra paragraph that they have invented a second fictitious charge, for legal representative's costs, when they have no legal representative.

Great news!

Very quickly as I'm in a rush at work. So what? If it were written on the signs that, should you not pay, you authorise them to smash in your car windows with baseball bats, could they legally do so? Of course not. The law is quite clear. Both the Beavis judgment at the High Court and the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 state that the original £100 is the maximum that can be charged. All you have to do here is copy from Mystic Bertie's WS.

There must be a term in English that combines "doing superb detective work" with "lazing on the beach". Anyway, Nick is right. Para 28 - "... on 22 April 2019 and I can confirm that these were all in place on the date in question and remain in place to date".

It's worth you keeping an eye on dbuk2000's thread. Their case is virtually identical to yours and they will have a court hearing on 22 April. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/466177-ukpc-2x-windscreen-pncs-claimform-appealed-residential-parking-in-my-own-space-forgot-permit/

Willesden County Court and Family Court - Find a Court or Tribunal - GOV.UK WWW.FIND-COURT-TRIBUNAL.SERVICE.GOV.UK Willesden County Court and Family Court - Find contact details, opening times, how to get to here, types of cases managed, disabled access to the...

I think it's a case of well done CAG. I came across this site because, during long drives to football matches as an away fan, my then teenage son used to draw my attention to signs showing restrictions in the service areas we stopped at. I thought I had better gen up on this private parking malarkey - and found CAG. At the time I didn't have a clue what a Witness Statement was! I do now due to standing on the shoulders of the Honeybee, dx, Brassnecked, Ericsbrother, Andyorch, LFI, etc. giants I found here. That's what CAG is all about, empowering users and sharing important legal knowledge. I'm damn sure if you know people in future with the attitude of "I got a private parking fine, I had better give in otherwise the parking company will divert a drone from Ukraine to hit my house" you'll explain the reality of their legal position and encourage them to fight back.

OK, having read everything, the main points of the WS are suggested below. You have until Monday to file, and even then a short delay as you are a LiP would be accepted by the court. So - 1. Sequence of Events. A brief description of how you got the tickets. 2. Supremacy of Contract. Your ace. You show your lease. You did a lot of good work on this in your original thread. You can use the info in these links and quote the persuasive cases http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2016/11/residential-parking.html http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2016/11/link-parking-lose-in-wrexham-flat-owner.html http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2017/05/ukpc-lose-residential-case-will-vicim.html?m=0 http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2017/07/ukpc-lose-residential-case-tenant-can.html Ridicule their para 24 ii "If the Defendant did not understand the Terms on the signs, they should have exited the land and found alternative parking" and point out that you were on your own land! Ridicule their para 33 and point out that it is not unreasonable behaviour to have the temerity to park on your own land. 3. Prohibition. The signs are wholly prohibitive and cannot form a contract. 4. No locus standi. I'm carp with contracts. However, forum regular LFI is an expert. I'm sure he'll be on tomorrow to weave his magic. 5. No keeper liability. UKPC have not written anything about you outing yourself as the driver. Forget my posts above. They've done your work for you with their lazy copy & paste WS! Ho! Ho! Ho! Therefore point out where they have not respected POFA, and ridicule their para 21 where they state "My Company reasonably believes that the Defendant was the Driver because they would otherwise have nominated a driver, and therefore the Defendant is pursued on that basis" which is laughable. You can tweak paras 14, 15 & 19 of Mystic Bertie's WS which is on this page https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/459507-ukpcdcbl-anpr-pcn-appealed-paploc-now-claimform-mcdonalds-bristol-patchway-562-bs34-5tq/page/5/#comments is I'm sure LFI will have other POFA comments. 6. Interest. It is unreasonable for the Claimant to delay litigation for nearly six years and accrue so much interest. 7. Double recovery. You can copy this section virtually verbatim from Mystic Bertie's thread as the PPCs always do the same thing. Mystic Bertie quotes a persuasive case which is attached. G4QZ465V Excel v Wilkinson.pdf

Thank you for all this. You've uploaded a huge amount which must have taken some doing. I'm slowly reading through it. Regarding both appeals, UKPC have logged you as "Driver and Registered Keeper". It seems that you outed yourself as the driver. Can you remember if you clicked some box with "Driver and Registered Keeper"? If you can't - it was six flippin' years ago! - are any of these tickets outstanding? If so, can you start a mock appeal, without actually finishing the appeal, and see if such a box flashes up? More later.

You've left this late - but not too late. I'll have a read through both threads this evening when I knock off work and will try to help. However, we need to see the PCNs and what you wrote in the appeals. Until then we'll have no idea if they respected POFA times, whether you outed yourself as the driver, etc. We also need to see their WS.