Excel ANPR Windscreen PCN Claimform - Brewery St car park, Chesterfield on 02.07. 2018 ***Claim Dismissed***

[Slaughter64]

Ok, but most of that doesn't apply - surely I can just send what I've sent already but in pdf form as it's already properly numbered etc?

I'm not sure I even need an index as it's only about 8 pages all together.

[Slaughter64]

Most of the letter is about the telephone/video details which haven't been confirmed yet.

 

The claimant's WS is about 15 pages long without all the documents and photos etc, that's going to take ages to scan and is anyone prepared to read through it all?

It will also probably change from what they finally send anyway?

 

Court Directions.pdf

[Slaughter64]

Here you go folks. I've not included the photos showing where the car was in the car park etc, they're just not relevant.

 

Some of these exhibits I didn't include in my own WS so I need someone to tell me which ones I need to include in my own bundle if I might need to refer to them.

 

Also attached is one of my exhibits from my WS showing a much clearer photo of the ticket on the dash, clearly showing the ticket ref number on the reverse of the ticket, same as the one that appears on the front.

 

 

Ticket on dash.pdf

 

I've not included a hand-written letter I sent to them in Sept 18 when I realised I had missed the deadline to appeal to the IAS, which they've included.

 

It was an appeal to their letter saying my appeal was rejected, and an explanation of what (presumably) happened on the day.

 

It was then that I mentioned that my wife was driving (I know), so they could have asked me for her details then, but they still continued to address everything to me. I even offered to pay a reduced charge of £30 to make it all go away. I also did this a few months ago in panic to save it going to court, I included the letter in my WS.

 

Not sure if this is any use or not, to show willing on my part? 

I just hope the judge won't just say to me 'will you accept paying a reduced charge now?' as I want my pound of flesh after all this hassle!

 

Claimant WS.pdf

[Slaughter64]

I sent the pdf's to the best of my ability, if I reduce them any more I'm worried they may not be legible, can you put them back please?

 

Can you tell me what's relevant about where the car was situated in the car park?

[Slaughter64]

Sorry, I didn't know you'd done that with the pdf's, thanks for that.

Other photos attached.

There's just a couple of others showing different angles of the car which surely aren't relevant.

I'm pretty sure that some lackey was to told to just copy everything pertaining to my case and that car park and to get it in the post before the due date, once they realised I wasn't going to pay up.

 

Either that or they just wanted a weighty enough package dropping through my letterbox to scare me off once and for all.

 

Btw, the last photo is one I sent them of the ticket still in my possession.

Photos.pdf

[Slaughter64]

On 24/12/2020 at 14:38, FTMDave said:

It is not an onerous requirement then to issue tickets that are adhesive to make sure they don't blow over!

 

Exactly!

 

I just need to know if anyone has any pointers as to anything I should take from their WS to add to my final 'bundle', apart from my own WS and exhibits. The bundle needs to be sent this week.

 

I've come this far, I don't want to slip up at the final hurdle. Maybe pm me if it's something they might have missed themselves?

[Slaughter64]

Hi, all attached below. The signage and NTD are from their WS, I don't have copies. I'm not sure if I ever received a Notice to Keeper as such.

I still have the windscreen ticket so I've scanned the front and back.

 

 

Signage etc.pdf

[Slaughter64]

I don't see how I can use any other photos (they were taken a year and a half earlier) as evidence even if I go and see what's there now, I just

don't have any from the time my car was there.

[Slaughter64]

Even if they were able to tell me, I think it's too late for that, though I can't see why I can't use that photo of the red sign

to use as an argument - if the claimant questions it, I just question the credibility of their photos?

[Slaughter64]

Wow! Thanks for that Lookin, much appreciated. I think we have enough there don't we?!

 

What I need to know now is how much of that I need to include in my key documents bundle for the hearing, according to the bit I highlighted in the court directions.

I guess I can just list those sections you mentioned from their WS (+ my arguments against), and send it to the court as well as Excel. As well as my WS and exhibits again, of course.

 

I also need to liaise with Excel somehow, to agree those documents. Do I just try and call them, or write?

 

Btw, it was me that redacted the paralegal's name - I didn't want to be doing something out of order.

[Slaughter64]

I forgot to attach this, I don't know if this is the Notice to Keeper that we're missing or not as it doesn't say it at the top.

 

It's from their WS and was put next to the Letter before Claim so I thought it was from this year which is why I didn't take much notice of it, but it's actually dated a month after the

Notice to Driver. Does an NTK have to say it at the top?

 

 

Notice of Court proceedings.pdf

[Slaughter64]

46 minutes ago, dx100uk said:

you did include them in the WS uploads i merged.

Ok, sorry, panicked a bit there. I'm guessing they can't say that's the NTK then.

 

Thanks for the musings.

 

More good news - I went on Google Maps and it clearly (almost) shows the two different signs with two different companies named.

And - note the date the photos were taken - July 2018!! The close up of the red sign is from the previous year, but my close up

from the screen shot just shows the VCS wording.

 

Signs.pdf

[Slaughter64]

Ok, so the Hearing was today, via telephone conference call, and... CLAIM DISMISSED! Yay! 

 

It seemed in the balance at one point as the judge was summing up, but it came down to keeper liability in the end. The bad news was that he wouldn't accept any costs on my part because it was via phone so I 'didn't lose any earnings'.

 

I tried to argue that nearly two hours on the phone is about the same as £95 loss of earnings on my hourly rate, but I can't prove that. He said all the other reasonable costs I put forward weren't admissible in small claims.

 

At least they're well out of pocket as I'm pretty sure they sent an outside legal person - NB, NOT the person named on their witness statement - should that have been allowed?

 

I'll post up the relevant details when I get the court judgement in a few days, I need to get some work done now!