Jump to content

StoryBoard

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    108
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

StoryBoard last won the day on April 4

StoryBoard had the most liked content!

Reputation

15 Good

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I was so content when the Judge dismissed the claim I didn't think to enquire or ask. He didn't mention anything. Reinstatement cost me about £108 but the countless hours and this claim hanging around for 3 years was far more concern. Do you know if I officially get a written copy of the outcome from the Court? I'm looking to buy the picture frame as we speak! Never been in a courtroom before so didn't know the drill.
  2. Ok, for you that want to know more detail..... The judge kept things simple. And different to what I'd expected. Claimant was represented by another company who have no affiliation to CEL (I introduced myself to them before the case and asked for their name). They indicated in Court that I had overstayed the time and were liable. I then made comments on both my witness statement and the claimants, citing all the feedback from CAG. The judge asked the Claimant representative about their witness statement. He asked if p35 was a list of registrations who had paid which was answered as yes. He referred to p31 where the Morrisons car park voucher was stated and crossed referenced p29 where it was written that I had paid for a ticket. He confirmed on a few occasions that the defendant had paid. {The eyeopener}. The Judge then stated that there was nowhere in their WS where the amount paid was noted and referred to p35 where this could have possibly been shown. The WS report says the time is overstayed but without any supporting evidence of the actual payment. He advised at this point to the Claimant that he had ruled on many car parking cases over his tenure. The Claimants representative then advised that the Defendant should have produced a bank statement to show the actual payment charge. The Judge was quick to point out that the machine did not have a contactless pay facility and that payment was only by cash/coins. (he got there before me!) They then said I should have paid for 2 hours at £4.50 not the £2 on the receipt, thereby identifying the cost being underpaid. When the judge asked for any comment from myself I referred to my photographs on p14 (actually theirs also condemns them) and stated that the wording shows that the Morrisons voucher was 'capped' at £2. I now believe he was looking at their old sign on p13 of their WS (which states exactly the same wording). He noted that as the Claimant was not in the court (being represented only) they could not respond to any of his questions. I have since realised that all the questions and clarification points the Judge had, were all raised through the Claimants WS. I do not believe that he referred to mine specifically. I assume this is more damning and he could make judgement on that alone. After a short pause he dismissed the case. District Judge OmoRegie. I left. Happy. ps As the signs at Morrisons have now been fully changed (and appear better linked up - post #223) I don't think the same arguments can be used for others in a similar position going forward.
  3. The claimants statement under clause 28 reads: 'The photographs provided were taken 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.
  4. I went to the car park today to take photos of the signs to compare directly with those in the claimants WS. Although I do not know when these were changed, these have been changed following the date of the PCN. The position of the signs have not changed just the wording on them. I do not think these photos are particularly relevant to my case other than to show that the signs have changed from photos included in both the Claimants and Defendants WS. Items that may be of interest. Appears the wording on the signs have been tightened up. 1. Entrance signs now states a company 'Atlantis FM Limited'. 2. The charges for the car park have not changed but 1 hour has changed to 1.5 hours and 2 hours has changed to 2.5 hours. 3. 'Payment must be made within 10 minutes of arrival' has changed to 'Payment must be made within 10 minutes of arrival on the premises'. 4. Civil Enforcement name and BPA logo now on the bottom of the signs. No other company name showing on signs. I'd be interested to know if any of this is worthy of raising at the hearing. Thanks. Butterfly walk photos taken 2nd April 2024.pdf
  5. I've just realised that the pack they posted to me came with a one page cover letter and the witness statement. I collated these together when uploading. 1 page cover plus 36 pages of WS. The court will not have been issued the cover note 1st page where the mentioning of incurring further costs was put. That, I believe, was just for me and not submitted to the Court by CEL. So assume this can't be referred to in Court? Post #210.
  6. Thanks Lifi The scanning in of the WS has reduced the legibility of the photos in hard copy but not much. They are still not clear on the hard copies. What I have noticed is that the post #211 mentioned that the photo appeared doctored on p12. It looks reasonable on the photo and the scanning in appears to have altered this to some effect. It therefore looks reasonable and not doctored. If I can, I will go back down to the car park next Tuesday and take photos of the existing signs. Very to the wire but might be able to demonstrate whether these are current. I'm unclear what your last paragraph is stating. Do not tell them? At what point should this be raised? I'm conscious that there are silent members viewing this thread whom I don't know and rightly provide no reference to identify them but hope that their intentions are good. If so, glad this is potentially helping their case/ knowledge. I am getting some great comments back, thank you. However I'm assuming when I'm given the time to speak I do refer to their WS, picking up some issues for the judge to consider in his overall assessment? If so, a structured list would be helpful to reference from and the priority/importance of each one would be helpful if that could be provided. Otherwise I can try and pick it up from the posts in layman's terms? ps How long has Scott Wilson been a barrister? As he is not attending the hearing a representative from the company or counsel will be attending instead.
  7. Thanks for the digging, sorry i missed that link. I assume it was noted that there were two different companies on their WS photos. 'ABC Car Park Solutions Limited' and also 'ABC Parking Solutions Limited'. There is no record of one of these names so far in searches. If the latest incarnation of the ABC company has been dissolved in March 2023, I assume this event hasn't got any relevance to the case? Eg who are CEL actually purporting to be working on behalf of now? Would it help if we knew why ABC were struck off? Apologies again, I know you are all working off scraps until next Tuesday, when I'll be able to upload their full WS.
  8. Evening All Just to confirm I posted my WS yesterday (19th March) to the Court and the Claimant. Got proof of posting for both. Also emailed Dartford Court the WS after confirming the correct email address. I received CEL's witness statement tonight on my return home. Envelope stamped as signed for (it wasn't) by Royal Mail and cost them £3.61 to deliver . Apologies but I'm not available to scan the full document in until Tuesday next week but is on nice gsm paper and 36 pages long. Without wanting to entice anyone greatly I'll briefly give comment here: 1. Cover letter again stating if not resolved in the next 7 days (at a value higher than the last letter at £135) they will seek to recover further costs for prep., attendance and travel. 2. Witness statement is from Scott Wilson, Barrister at CEL. 3. Claimant is a company which provides car park management and enforcement notices to owners of Private Car Parks (PCPs) under written agreement. 4. Claimant states they are a member of BPA and abides with the BPA code of practice for members. I take it from this that ABC may not be a BPA member but CEL are? 5. Placement and content of notices were prominent. Refers to Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106. 6. Liability to pay parking charges and case Parking Eye Limited v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67. 7. The driver forms the parking contract with the Claimant, rather than the owner or managing agent of the PCP. 8. Confirmation of Authority to manage the car park attached as Exhibit SW1. I have uploaded this page. I'll let you draw conclusions on this evidence. They never issued this to myself. 9. Provided photographs taken on 22nd April 2019 and confirm that these were all in place on the date in question and remain in place to date. Exhibit SW3 shows the company name on the parking sign photos as 'ABC Car Park Solutions Limited' and also 'ABC Parking Solutions Limited' (which are not 'ABC Facilities Management Limited' from my photos taken 1 month after incident, not 2 years before - they didn't take a photo of the same sign). Neither of these company names could be found on a quick search of companies house. 10. They note the time of stay as 1 hour 48 minutes. 11. Claim cost broken down. £100 (parking charge), £70 (debt recovery and tracing fee and background litigation checks), £20.20 (accrued interest), Total £190.20. 12. Statement of Truth finishes on page 7. Signed and Dated 18th March 2023. The rest of the following pages are 9 exhibits. 13. Exhibit SW7 shows my appeal and comments. I hadn't realised that I'd given them my email, mobile number, correct address on this appeal at this time on 8th May 2021. It is also listed appeal as driver. Uploaded. I also uploaded my receipt as evidence. I don't see anything in particular in this WS that concerns me within, but will allow CAG to review this next week in case there are items that need to be drawn out or checked upon. Hopefully Tuesday 26th. Thanks all. POPLA Appeal.pdf CEL Confirmation of Authority.pdf
  9. Thanks for the reassurance on fees. I have included the WS respecting paragraph in the last version, thanks. And yes, still no Claimants WS received.
  10. I've just been re-checking a few things before issue. I noticed that the claim on the MCOL website is £275.20 made up as shown below. The wording in the WS refers to £170.00. It allegedly increased from £170.00 from Final reminder before legal action to £275.20 when the claim form was issued on 19th October 2022. I also do not see the £170.00 mentioned in this last breakdown (unless a portion of interest has been added)? Do I need to amend my statement or leave as is? Amount Claimed £190.20 Court Fee £35.00 Solicitor Costs £50.00 Total Amount £275.20
  11. I've read through it several times and the court order does not stipulate an email address for the court. From the link for civil cases I'm assuming it will be [email protected] All of you. Many thanks for the direction. I'll get the WS issued tomorrow to the Court via email and the Claimant via post.
  12. Hi. The claim was issued against me on 19/10/2022. I therefore assume the email address I use to submit my WS would be: [email protected] and anything that requires posting would be to the Court Office address at Dartford County Court for the attention of the Court Manager (as noted on the N157 footnote). Is the email address for submission correct?
  13. Many thanks FTM. Just wanting to get it right. I'll await any final comments from other CAGers tomorrow (Monday) and look to issue/post the WS on Tuesday 19th March.
×
×
  • Create New...