Jump to content


excel/bw claimform - 2011 EPS PCN EBBW VALE **WON + COSTS**


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1398 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

is this better:-

 

 

WITNESS STATEMENT

_________________________ _

 

1. The facts in this witness statement come from my personal knowledge. Where they are not within my own knowledge there are true to the best of my information and belief

 

2. The defendant is not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all and this is my Witness Statement in support of my defence as filed.

 

3. Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question in this case. Defendant was not the driver. As informed to the claimant the vehicle was owned by a limited company and used as a pool car. Due to a fire in the yard in early 2016 in which everything was lost company is now dissolved.

 

4. The claimants have failed to respond to my CPR 31:14 request made on 10/03/2017 by Royal Mail recorded delivery postal service requesting any documentation or relevant contracts with the land owners that allow the claimant to issue claims upon the landowners’ behalf.

 

The Court is invited to dismiss this Claim, and to allow my wasted costs which will be submitted separately and in a timely manner, depending upon whether a hearing takes place.

 

 

I firmly believe that to pursue me as registered keeper when the Claimant admits they have no such right, and to submit such incoherent particulars and lacking ‘evidence’ is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. And a breach of DATA protection can occur when a parking company pursues a charge which is not valid, or an over inflated charge, or both and the defendant believes this has happened and use this case as ref case D6GM2199 v Mr B Bury county court, before DJ Osborne.

 

 

5. Claimant claim to have issued a NTK that they claimed was compliant with POFA. this cannot be the case as the law didn’t exist at the time*

so claimant is misleading the court in asserting things they know cannot be true.

 

As Claimant did not produce evidence of the driver, and as

Elliott v Loake is not persuasive and can be distinguished, the claim was dismissed.

 

6. I also point out to the presiding Judge that the Claimant has not supplied any evidence at all that the alleged contraventions even occurred.

ANPR camera photos merely show a vehicle arriving and leaving.

All vehicles will have been recorded thus (assuming their VRNs were captured).

All vehicles, including those whose drivers paid and displayed.

 

7. In order to demonstrate that the driver(s) on these occasions failed to pay & display, the Claimant should have evidenced that, of course.

Where are the photos of the dashboard showing no P&D ticket displayed?

 

 

Failing that, as this is an ANPR site, where are the system records showing no payment made on these days?

 

 

They have not even supplied lists of the VRNs input by drivers on those days,

e.g. showing a mismatched payment, wrong VRN or no entry at all that corresponds with this vehicle.

 

8. There is a well-known history of the parking ticket machines of the claimants failing to record a VRN and this has been recorded in two recent cases.

One mentioned above, at Stockport CC in Excel v Mr C C8DP37F1 Stockport 31/10/2016.

 

The other being Excel Parking v Mrs S. C8DP11F9 on 09/09/2016 at Oldham CC.

In this case the defendant purchased a ticket, but the machine was faulty and did not print her VRN correctly.

 

The judge ruled in favour of the defendant on the balance of probabilities that she bought her ticket and entered the VRN correctly, only for the machine to erroneously mis-print it. The case was dismissed.

 

9. The driver maintains that a ticket was bought and displayed on the vehicle during the stay at the car park, however, as this was the first use of a pool vehicle, the VRN may have been incorrectly entered, albeit still a valid VRN.

 

As stated in point 6. Above, no pictures of the vehicle without a valid ticket have been produced by the claimant. There are no system records showing no payment made, nor has there been any lists of VRNs input by drivers on that day,

e.g. showing a mismatched payment, wrong VRN or no entry at all that corresponds with this vehicle.

 

10. The claimant`s Particulars of Claim states that the PCN was issued on 11/12/11 which is incorrect. It was issued on 06/01/2012 as stated on their own PCN letter.

 

 

The contents of my statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

I will need to get this sent off tomorrow to comply with the dates set by the court, so any helpful comments would be appreciated.

 

Regards

 

John

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 82
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

1. The facts in this witness statement come from my personal knowledge. Where they are not within my own knowledge there are true to the best of my information and belief

 

2. The defendant is not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all and this is my Witness Statement in support of my defence as filed.

 

3. Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question in this case. Defendant was not the driver. As informed to the claimant the vehicle was owned by a limited company and used as a pool car. Due to a fire in the yard in early 2016 in which everything was lost company is now dissolved.

 

4. The claimants have failed to respond to my CPR 31:14icon request made on 10/03/2017 by Royal Mail recorded delivery postal service requesting any documentation or relevant contracts with the land owners that allow the claimant to issue claims upon the landowners’ behalf.

 

The Court is invited to dismiss this Claim, and to allow my wasted costs which will be submitted separately and in a timely manner, depending upon whether a hearing takes place.

 

 

I firmly believe that to pursue me as registered keeper when the Claimant admits they have no such right, and to submit such incoherent particulars and lacking ‘evidence’ is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. And a breach of DATA protection can occur when a parking company pursues a charge which is not valid, or an over inflated charge, or both and the defendant believes this has happened and use this case as ref case D6GM2199 v Mr B Bury county courticon, before DJ Osborne.

 

 

5. Claimant claim to have issued a NTK that they claimed was compliant with POFA. this cannot be the case as the law didn’t exist at the time*

so claimant is misleading the court in asserting things they know cannot be true.

 

As Claimant did not produce evidence of the driver, and as

Elliott v Loake is not persuasive and can be distinguished, the claim was dismissedicon.

 

6. I also point out to the presiding Judge that the Claimant has not supplied any evidence at all that the alleged contraventions even occurred.

ANPR camera photos merely show a vehicle arriving and leaving.

All vehicles will have been recorded thus (assuming their VRNs were captured).

All vehicles, including those whose drivers paid and displayed.

 

7. In order to demonstrate that the driver(s) on these occasions failed to pay & display, the Excel should have evidenced of that, Excel have failed to provide photos of the dashboard showing no P&D ticket displayed?

 

 

Failing that, as this is an ANPR site, where are the system records showing no payment made on these days?

 

 

They have not even supplied lists of the VRNs input by drivers on those days,

e.g. showing a mismatched payment, wrong VRN or no entry at all that corresponds with this vehicle.

 

8. There is a well-known history of the parking ticket machines of the claimants failing to record a VRN and this has been recorded in two recent cases.

One mentioned above, at Stockport CC in Excel v Mr C C8DP37F1 Stockport 31/10/2016.

 

The other being Excel Parking v Mrs S. C8DP11F9 on 09/09/2016 at Oldham CC.

In this case the defendant purchased a ticket, but the machine was faulty and did not print her VRN correctly.

 

The judge ruled in favour of the defendant on the balance of probabilities that she bought her ticket and entered the VRN correctly, only for the machine to erroneously mis-print it. The case was dismissed.

 

9. The driver maintains that a ticket was bought and displayed on the vehicle during the stay at the car park, however, as this was the first use of a pool vehicle, the VRN may have been incorrectly entered, albeit still a valid VRN.

 

As stated in point 6. Above, no pictures of the vehicle without a valid ticket have been produced by the claimant. There are no system records showing no payment made, nor has there been any lists of VRNs input by drivers on that day,

e.g. showing a mismatched payment, wrong VRN or no entry at all that corresponds with this vehicle.

 

10. The claimant`s Particulars of Claim states that the PCN was issued on 11/12/11 which is incorrect. It was issued on 06/01/2012 as stated on their own PCN letter.

 

 

The contents of my statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

I will need to get this sent off tomorrow to comply with the dates set by the court, so any helpful comments would be appreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

point 2 expand to put it to "strict proof" of any liability to the claimant by the defendant as the defendant was not the driver at the time.

 

on point 3 you need to make it clear that with a ltd company there is no individual responsibility and in any case any corporate responsibility has now gone ( there never was any but they will argue otherwise or they will have wasted a day out)

 

you also need to have images of the sigange as it is now so you can show the court that theirs are most likely not contemporaneous with their claim. Ie, if their pictures are the same as yours then they are not from 2011.

 

Dont forget, the IPC didnt exist them so their membership logo will be a killer for them. Also, yo havent gone into the contractual rights of Excel as it was most likely VCS at the time as it nearly always is.

 

You shoudl raise the contract with the landowner issue as it will have been in the CPR request so make a mountain out of thek not producing this. Make it point 1 or 2

Link to post
Share on other sites

1. The facts in this witness statement come from my personal knowledge. Where they are not within my own knowledge there are true to the best of my information and belief

 

2. The defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof of any liability for the sum claimed, or any amount as defendant was not the driver at the time.

 

3. Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question in this case. Defendant was not the driver. As informed to the claimant the vehicle was owned by a limited company and used as a pool car, as ltd company was the owner there is no individual responsibility and in any case any corporate responsibility has now gone Due to a fire in the yard in early 2016 in which everything was lost company is now dissolved.

 

4. The claimants have failed to respond to my CPR 31:14icon request made on 10/03/2017 by Royal Mail recorded delivery postal service requesting any documentation or relevant contracts with the land owners at the time of the alleged offence that allow the claimant (Excel) to issue claims upon the landowners’ behalf.

 

The Court is invited to dismiss this Claim, and to allow my wasted costs which will be submitted separately and in a timely manner, depending upon whether a hearing takes place.

 

 

I firmly believe that to pursue me as registered keeper when the Claimant admits they have no such right, and to submit such incoherent particulars and lacking ‘evidence’ is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. And a breach of DATA protection can occur when a parking company pursues a charge which is not valid, or an over inflated charge, or both and the defendant believes this has happened and use this case as ref case D6GM2199 v Mr B Bury county courticon, before DJ Osborne.

 

 

5. Claimant claim to have issued a NTK that they claimed was compliant with POFA. this cannot be the case as the law didn’t exist at the time*

so claimant is misleading the court in asserting things they know cannot be true.

 

As Claimant did not produce evidence of the driver, and as

Elliott v Loake is not persuasive and can be distinguished, the claim was dismissedicon.

 

6. I also point out to the presiding Judge that the Claimant has not supplied any evidence at all that the alleged contraventions even occurred.

ANPR camera photos merely show a vehicle arriving and leaving.

All vehicles will have been recorded thus (assuming their VRNs were captured).

All vehicles, including those whose drivers paid and displayed.

 

7. In order to demonstrate that the driver(s) on these occasions failed to pay & display, the Excel should have evidenced of that, Excel have failed to provide photos of the dashboard showing no P&D ticket displayed?

 

 

Failing that, as this is an ANPR site, where are the system records showing no payment made on these days?

 

 

They have not even supplied lists of the VRNs input by drivers on those days,

e.g. showing a mismatched payment, wrong VRN or no entry at all that corresponds with this vehicle.

 

8. There is a well-known history of the parking ticket machines of the claimants failing to record a VRN and this has been recorded in two recent cases.

One mentioned above, at Stockport CC in Excel v Mr C C8DP37F1 Stockport 31/10/2016.

 

The other being Excel Parking v Mrs S. C8DP11F9 on 09/09/2016 at Oldham CC.

In this case the defendant purchased a ticket, but the machine was faulty and did not print her VRN correctly.

 

The judge ruled in favour of the defendant on the balance of probabilities that she bought her ticket and entered the VRN correctly, only for the machine to erroneously mis-print it. The case was dismissedicon.

 

9. The driver maintains that a ticket was bought and displayed on the vehicle during the stay at the car park, however, as this was the first use of a pool vehicle, the VRN may have been incorrectly entered, albeit still a valid VRN.

 

As stated in point 6. Above, no pictures of the vehicle without a valid ticket have been produced by the claimant. There are no system records showing no payment made, nor has there been any lists of VRNs input by drivers on that day,

e.g. showing a mismatched payment, wrong VRN or no entry at all that corresponds with this vehicle.

 

10. The claimant`s Particulars of Claim states that the PCN was issued on 11/12/11 which is incorrect. It was issued on 06/01/2012 as stated on their own PCN letter.

 

 

The contents of my statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

I will need to get this sent off tomorrow to comply with the dates set by the court, so any helpful comments would be appreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

point 4

no need to mention how you served the CPR 31.14, to do so invites challenge.

This has been pointed out before but you seem intent on leaving it in.

Ask yourself if by doing so you are adding anything to the statement.

 

you shouldnt be asking questions in a statement

so reword para 7 so it says somehting like "Excel have failed to produce evidence...." again, this is me repeating myself on this point

 

 

this is a STATEMENT about your version of things and not a questionnaire.

you wil get your chance to ask them things on the day

so make sure that you make the relevent points first on your list and dispassionate

 

 

so on your poit 6 just leave it as

"The claimant hasnt provided" rather then appearing to tell the judge their job.

 

 

FACTS only so ponit 8 will not say there is a well known history but "I cite and example of....."

and then make sure you have included a full a reference as you can for this as an appendment in your evidence bundle, even if it is only a screen shot of a web site. just quote it without some hard copy and it will be ignored

Link to post
Share on other sites

1. The facts in this witness statement come from my personal knowledge. Where they are not within my own knowledge there are true to the best of my information and belief

 

2. The defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof of any liability for the sum claimed, or any amount as defendant was not the driver at the time.

 

3. Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question in this case. Defendant was not the driver. As informed to the claimant the vehicle was owned by a limited company and used as a pool car, as ltd company was the owner there is no individual responsibility and in any case any corporate responsibility has now gone Due to a fire in the yard in early 2016 in which everything was lost company is now dissolved.

 

4. The claimants have failed to respond to my CPR 31:14icon request made on 10/03/2017 requesting any documentation or relevant contracts with the land owners at the time of the alleged offence that allow the claimant (Excel) to issue claims upon the landowners’ behalf.

 

The Court is invited to dismiss this Claim, and to allow my wasted costs which will be submitted separately and in a timely manner, depending upon whether a hearing takes place.

 

 

I firmly believe that to pursue me as registered keeper when the Claimant admits they have no such right, and to submit such incoherent particulars and lacking ‘evidence’ is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. And a breach of DATA protection can occur when a parking company pursues a charge which is not valid, or an over inflated charge, or both and the defendant believes this has happened and use this case as ref case D6GM2199 v Mr B Bury county courticon, before DJ Osborne.

 

 

5. Claimant claim to have issued a NTK that they claimed was compliant with POFA. this cannot be the case as the law didn’t exist at the time*

so claimant is misleading the court in asserting things they know cannot be true.

 

As Claimant did not produce evidence of the driver, and as

Elliott v Loake is not persuasive and can be distinguished, the claim was dismissedicon.

 

6. The claimant hasn't provided any evidence at all that the alleged contraventions even occurred.

ANPR camera photos merely show a vehicle arriving and leaving.

All vehicles will have been recorded thus (assuming their VRNs were captured).

All vehicles, including those whose drivers paid and displayed.

 

7. Ive not received evidenced of photos of the dashboard showing no P&D ticket displayed?

 

 

Failing that, as this is an ANPR site, where are the system records showing no payment made on these days?

 

 

They have not even supplied lists of the VRNs input by drivers on those days,

e.g. showing a mismatched payment, wrong VRN or no entry at all that corresponds with this vehicle.

 

8. I Cite and example of parking ticket machines of the claimants failing to record a VRN and this has been recorded in two recent cases.

One mentioned above, at Stockport CC in Excel v Mr C C8DP37F1 Stockport 31/10/2016.

 

The other being Excel Parking v Mrs S. C8DP11F9 on 09/09/2016 at Oldham CC.

In this case the defendant purchased a ticket, but the machine was faulty and did not print her VRN correctly.

 

The judge ruled in favour of the defendant on the balance of probabilities that she bought her ticket and entered the VRN correctly, only for the machine to erroneously mis-print it. The case was dismissedicon.

 

9. The driver maintains that a ticket was bought and displayed on the vehicle during the stay at the car park, however, as this was the first use of a pool vehicle, the VRN may have been incorrectly entered, albeit still a valid VRN.

 

As stated in point 6. Above, no pictures of the vehicle without a valid ticket have been produced by the claimant. There are no system records showing no payment made, nor has there been any lists of VRNs input by drivers on that day,

e.g. showing a mismatched payment, wrong VRN or no entry at all that corresponds with this vehicle.

 

10. The claimant`s Particulars of Claim states that the PCN was issued on 11/12/11 which is incorrect. It was issued on 06/01/2012 as stated on their own PCN letter.

 

 

The contents of my statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Drop point 1,

to say anything that wasnt true will get you time in a cell so it is self-evident and your wording will merely irritate anyone reading it.

 

drop all of the garbage like " I firmly believe",

you have been told that this is subjective

yet you keep wanting to repeat it.

 

Stick to FACTS Likewise

"inviting the court to ditch the matter and pay your costs.

 

this is not part of your WS but a separate application for costs,

which you will have worked out beforehand and can produce copies of for all parties on the day.

 

Point 7,

you still have it as a question,

either rewrite to state no evidence of a screen ticket has ever been produced or drop the point entirely,

like other bits it will irritate the judge no end,

 

it is his/her place to ask questions initially and may well ask such killer questions that Excel will be stuffed without saying a word.

 

Write a load of condescending waffle and you will be at the end of the killer question.

 

Likewise when you say the claimant claim to have...

. They said they did so they did.

What you say is that this was never received

 

You don't say I cite an example of anything,

you start the para saying in Excel v mr C at stockport CC etc

 

Point 9 you don't say the driver maintained...

.. you say "a ticket was purchased and displayed at the time

 

when you state something there is no system records you cannot possibly know this so you say

"No evidence of mismatched payments has been produced by the parking do despite requests that they search and then produce any such material"

 

You must read other threads and witness statements in the CAG legal section to see how people put these things together as you seem to be determined to want to shoot yourself in the foot, reload and shoot it again.

 

Understand,

you are making a cold statement and not talking to an audience.

This has been said 3 times before but you dont seem to want to take any notice.

 

Do not throw a certain victory away because you think that making digs at the claimant is a good idea.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I I have searched but using a iPad at present and can't seem to find any. Also need to know how to get the cases I have quote so I can print hard copies for ref. Paper work not my thing

Link to post
Share on other sites

you fond something pertinent, say on MSE and the do a screen print . the printed copy will be probably a bit smaller then you would like and on a grey background but will be legible. Local library will usually have a print facility for not much per copy

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've missed dead line sorry has witness statement of bwlegal

Theses 17 mins between in photo and out photo

They are claiming 100 but on the letter they say they sent it says £90

The letter from land lord is from 2014 not 2011 when alleged parking happens

Advocate will be at court witness

Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry

can you type that in English please^^^

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

so you've got theirs?

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

post 42

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Strange that the hearing date is 14 Sept and jcbkabs has to get his paperwork in by 19 June?

My similar hearing is for 14 July and my docs are due by 04 July?

Is there any point in my ringing the court to see if the claimant solicitor has paid the 25 quid hearing fee due for my hearing on 14 June?

Link to post
Share on other sites

yes always

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

you follow the orders of the court.

 

With regard to their disparities,

you make them part of your WS

so you don't forget them and don't have to try and slot the arguments in on the day.

 

It all ruins their claim but there are more important things to get across in the WS s these follow on from them.

 

If it does end up in a hearing and I suspect that this may well be dropped just before the day to try and save them money

 

(they know they are going to lose a defended claim)

then you challenge the credentials of their advocate as it must be either a member of Excel staff, a member of BW staff or a solicitor.

 

What normally happens is they employ a local firm who sends a paralegal who has no right of audience

 

look this up,

copy off the relevant bit of Civil Procedure law and challenge their credentials as soon as you walk through the door.

 

Read up on this as well so you know the ins and outs should the judge not have a perfect recall of all of the law in the land

Edited by honeybee13
Paras
Link to post
Share on other sites

the parking prankster has reported on another Excel case about a car park in Swansea from jan 2012 (pre POFA) so read it and digest it thoroughy. Quote it as well as it refers to another case where no keepr liability was an issue for excel.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Hi guys thanks for all your help

 

I won and had £103 awarded in costs.

 

The pcn had the wrong address and also £90 on the pace then on the photos of the signs it stated £100 Jude was very helpful in picking theses up

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...