HXCPM/Gladstones vanishing Windscreen PCN claimform - Flipped Ticket - St Georges Car Park, Fitzwilliam St, Huddersfield ***Claim Dismissed***

[skeet23]

Here's the text portion of the claimant's witness statement.

I will upload the remainder of it soon (it's all images inside the PDF and will take a bit of work to extract and redact)- but in summary it will contain:

* The contract between the landowner and claimant

* Images of the payment machine and signage (IMPORTANT - these are different from the pictures I have taken !)

* Site map showing position of signage

* Audit log from "zat park" roboclaims software

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* Original NTK Letter

* Final Demand Letter

* Some postal logs

* My "Appeal" letter

* Appeal Rejection Letter

* Parking Whitelist

* Pictures of the vehicle

* Letter before Claim

 

I don't intend to upload the NTK and anything below that (unless someone asks) ... it's either already on this thread, or, in my view, not really relevant.

 

Also, the mail from gladdys contained this:

 

The assumption is that our Client is not attending the hearing and therefore we kindly request this notice be treated as a notice pursuant to CPR 27.9.

What does this mean ? Is it am attempt to get an "on the papers" hearing ?

Thanks

--skeet23

WS-Redacted.pdf

[skeet23]

Hi, All.

Thanks for your comments.

Attached is the remainder of "their" WS ... and the first draft of mine.

I look forward to your feedback.

Regards,

--skeet23

WS-Redacted_2.pdf skeet23_witness_statement_01.pdf

[skeet23]

Hmmm. Or indeed any evidence the contract was still in force in October 2018 ?

Is it worth mentioning this in my witness statement ?

 

--skeet23

[skeet23]

Thanks for your comments ... attaching an updated WS.

I'd appreciate any further feedabck etc ... I need to file this by the end of the week.

Regards

--skeet23

skeet23_witness_statement_02.pdf

[skeet23]

Thanks, @FTMDave for your feedback, I will take your points on board.

I was using the title "Mitigation" in an attempt to convey how reasonably I have behaved, and how stubborn and overzealous (i.e. unreasonable) the claimant and their solicitors are.

Any suggestions for a more appropriate title ?

Cheers

--skeet23

[skeet23]

Thanks, @brassnecked. Understood.

I was using "mitigation" in the way we use it in my profession ... for example, in an IT project we would try to "mitigate" risk (i.e. take actions to alleviate it or reduce its impact) ... I was unaware that in a legal context it would imply "I am guilty but please be lenient because ...".

Would "Mitigating Factors" be a better title ... as I mentioned in post #82, I am trying to convey how reasonably I have behaved, and how unreasonable the claimant's behaviour has been, and how trivial the "transgression" really is, leading to the "de minimis" conclusion.

Best Regards,

--skeet23

Edited October 15, 2019 by skeet23

[skeet23]

Hi All.

I've made the suggested changes.

Posting for a final review as I need to print and mail it on Friday.

Best Regards,

--skeet23skeet23_witness_statement_03.pdf

[skeet23]

Evening All!

I've amended to reflect @brassnecked's comments (as per post #86, simply changed "mitigating circumstances" to "facts").

Everyone keeps suggesting @ericsbrother should give it the once-over but time is running short - I'm out of the country for a week from tomorrow morning, and my return will fall inside the 14 day period that the WS must be served - i.e. too late!

I don't want this to sound like an ultimatum, but if EB hasn't replied by mid morning tomorrow, I am going to have to send it with or without his blessing.

Best Regards,

--skeet23

 

[skeet23]

Hi All,

Well - I had my day in court. No show from Gladstones.

The Judge stated that he was "aware" of this car park and the "cloakroom tickets" that they issue.

He thought some of my arguments were legally tenuous (my words, not his) but he accepted the "de minimis" argument, in that a ticket was purchased and displayed in good faith, and that in this respect, the terms and conditions had been met.

The claim was thrown out and he awarded my incidental costs plus loss of earnings.

I had chanced my arm and asked for 10 hours of "litigant in person" research costs but the Judge told me that this was not applicable to the small claims court.

Still, a win is a win!

When those nice people at Gladstones and HX send me a cheque, I will be making a donation to the CAG.

My thanks to everyone on this forum for the help and support I have received.

Best Regards

--skeet23

 

[skeet23]

Hi Everyone,

Well, they (gladdys) finally paid up ... and only one day after the "due" date.

Thanks again for all of your help.

I've made a donation ... keep up the good work.

Best Regards,

--skeet23.