Armtrac/BW Windscreen PCN PAPLOC Now Claimform - no Permit Beach Road Porthtowan, Cornwall.

[brassnecked]

They appear to claim the right  the right to sue for trespass under 3 (c) but not sure how they could transfer that from the landowner to themselves although they might deem no permit as evidence of trespass, but what would be the damage to sue for?  You can understand breach of a contract, but that agreement itself looks a dog's chunder.

[Bobbynub]

Please find attached my most recent WS, not quite finished yet.

 

Thanks.

PCN Witness Statement Rev 2 CAG.pdf

[brassnecked]

Looking good, now if FTM DX and Lookedinforinfo have a peek any last minute tweaks can go in.

If that's the signage in Exhibit 3  they rely on its woeful illegible and likely easily missable in the dark.

[Bobbynub]

Thanks brassnecked. Do you guys reckon I should explain why I offered the £100 to settle the fee, seeing as they included it within their WS?

[FruitSalad1010]

I presume brassnecked is referring to exhibit 4 within your WS (as they are paginated at the bottom of each page).

 

Are there elements of the Claimant's WS missing in the uploaded PDF? Within their WS the Claimant refers to pages numbered up to 28 within their exhibit TM1, however within the uploaded PDF of what appears to include elements of exhibit TM1 the pages end at page 4.

[lookinforinfo]

Thanks for the info. Bobby. Just two more things , one because I thought it  may have been a one way street. 

 

On that basis could you have come from the other direction in order to park your car in the lay by. If you had swung right to get into the lay by you would not have been able to read the sign that was leading to the slipway since it was facing away from you.

 

And the one at the Blue Bar would have been too far  away from you to read that one too. Which leaves the one that may have been there immediately to your left which you didn't see as you were in the process of turning right.

 

The signage is a bit strange as in some places you can park in some areas without needing a permit providing you do not park between 23.59 and 6 am or you cannot park anywhere else at any time unless you have a permit.

 

And nowhere does it say how to obtain or qualify for a permit. and unless you could have got one from the Blue Bar, it would seem there is nowhere else that you could obtain one late at night.

 

The second thing is to ask if you could please post up the whole contract as you cut off the bottom bit. And as Fruit Salad asked, were there any other photos etc that you didn't include as sometimes it is the small details that catches them out. And it would help if you could remember if the signage around that parking area was correct.

 

 

[FTMDave]

I should have flipping well got on with the WS this afternoon instead of indulging in football-based masochism

 

Well done with the WS.  Short & concise.  the judge will appreciate that.

 

Typo:

   4c pursue not peruse.

 

The exhibit numbers in the WS differ nearly always from the numbers of the actual exhibits included.

 

In the DOUBLE RECOVERY section you've inverted the legit with the illegit costs.  it needs to start

 

As well as the original £100 plus £75 solicitor and court costs, the Claimant seeks recovery of an extra £60 described as debt recovery costs

 

I would add extra bits.

 

4 d.  In section 50.1 of their Witness Statement, the Claimant's solicitor refers to "registered keeper and/or the driver".  The registered keeper and the driver are two completely different figures and it is clear the Claimant has not followed POFA 2012.

 

7  e.  In their Witness Statement finally a copy of a contract is included.  In (3 c) of the contract it is written "To authorise Amtrac Security Services to act for them to take legal action to recover monies due ..."  "Them" are Chris and Linsey Smith.  Amtrac Security Servies are supposed to act for Chris and Linsey Smith in legal action, not to make money for Amtrac Security Services.

 

7  f.  The same clause underlines that litigation must be for trespass.  Only the landowner can sue for trespass, again any damages should go to Chris and Linsey Smith.  Furthermore, the Claimant is not suing for trespass.

 

8  d.  In section 43 of their Witness Statement, he Claimant's solicitor refers to wording on the signage that warns of additional costs.  The sign was not illuminated, it was broken with several of these words missing, the words are written in small font and even if they were legible the driver of the car would be liable for this extra charge, not the keeper.

 

8 e.  In section 49 there is a reference to the IPC.  The IPC is a trade body, hopelessly biased in favour of its members.  In fact the IPC was set up as a rival to the British Parking Association because companies such as the Claimant considered that the British Parking Association was too fair towards motorists.  It is neither here nor there what the IPC considers as reasonable and lawful.  What counts is what the law in England & Wales considers as reasonable and lawful.

 

Renumber 8 as 9 and stick in a new 8

 

PROHIBITION

8  a.  Even if the driver had been able to read the one broken sign in the dark, the sign was purely prohibitive and would not have offered a contract.

 

You mention in post 102 about their handwritten squiggles being wrong - well point that out in a 5 c.

 

I still think you could nick a bit more of Alaska101's attack on the Unicorn Food Tax and expand the DOUBLE RECOVERY section a bit.

 

Don't worry about the £100 you offered, they haven't made a big deal of it in their WS.  You are allowed to negotiate before a court case.

Edited January 29, 2022 by FTMDave
Typo

[FruitSalad1010]

The point I was going to make if indeed the PDF uploaded is a true copy the Claimant's WS is despite the fact they have written war and peace as to why the contract entered into is enforceable they appear to have failed to evidence the actual contract and terms and conditions contained within upon which they are basing their claim.

 

I agree exhibit 4 of the defence WS is good evidence indicating the poor quality of the signage however it also aids the Claimant as it enters into evidence on their behalf the contract on which they intend to rely.

 

-disregard-

 

Edited January 29, 2022 by FruitSalad1010

[lookinforinfo]

You showed a photo of where you parked early on in your thread. I can see no signs around it that say anything about parking at all. Where are the signs that say you can park here until midnight and is it a free car park.

 

[Bobbynub]

Wow, I am so grateful for all of the help guys, thank you so much. 

 

Lookinforinfo, sorry, at the end of the Beach Road it is a dead end, and so it is not possible to reach the layby from the opposite direction. I also agree with you that it is odd how some signs say you can park before 23.59 and others don't. Please find attached a PDF with pictures of signs. The first 2 signs are fixed to the Blue bar pub wall. The last sign is located at the start of the road. 

And yes, although they repeatedly say "no parking without permit", it is made impossible to buy a permit, and the pub does not sell them either.

 

FTM - thank you very much for the fantastic material, I have put it into the WS.

 

FruitSalad - Ah yes the PDF merge has missed out a page, I shall try and make a new merge. I had a look, and the missing page does not include anything about the contract, only as to why they think an immovable vehicle is irrelevant in the case.

20210425_165144-merged-compressed (2).pdf

[FTMDave]

Actually, thinking about it, as they've had a dig about the £100 offer, how about doing it back to show they are scammers.  How about, just before your Statement of Truth, adding -

 

 

XX.  No disrespect is meant towards the court if this Witness Statement is slightly late.  As explained in (3 c) above the driver thought the original piece of paper left on their car was a scam and so they did not keep the Notice to Driver. 

 

Once I realised that litigation was possible I sent a Subject Access Request to Amtrac Security Services on XXXXX (exhibit XXXXX) which was completely ignored in flagrant breach of their statutory duty.  I had to contact the Information Commissioner's Office to force Amtrac Security Services to comply on XXXXX (exhibit XXXXX).  I have therefore written up this Witness Statement at the very last minute.

 

 

If you don't know the dates and/or don't have the exhibits, no problem, cut those bits out, after all they've given no details in their rubbish about you offering them money.  Just show the judge they are chancers who don't respect the law.

 

If the fleecers try to moan about your WS being a day late, well it's already in there that it is due to their unlawful conduct

 

If you have time tomorrow post up a revised version of your WS, as there have been loads of changes.

[FruitSalad1010]

Provided you are absolutely sure that no reference is made to the alleged contract beyond paragraph 11 of the Claimant's WS then consider amending section 5, (comments in red.)


NO CONTRACT FORMED

5a.  The Claimant has failed to disclose or provide any evidence of any contract alleged to have been breached by the Defendant and are put to strict proof that any such contract exists. (The point being they have not evidenced the contract alleged to have been breached, no evidence of contract, no claim.)

5b. The signage at the location was unreadable (Exhibit 3). As a result of the unreadable signage the Defendant was not in a position to consider any alleged offer by the Claimant. The state of the signage was so poor that it did not constitute an offer of terms and as a result it was not possible for the Defendant to accept any alleged offer or to accept that any contract was on offer at all. This also shows that the replacement of damaged signs is not of importance to Armtrac.

5c The location at which the car was parked seemed as if it were a small, free car park for the pub, position directly opposite the spot. No signage suggested otherwise.

Edited January 30, 2022 by FruitSalad1010

[lookinforinfo]

Looking at their WS there are a number of points that you could add which may weaken their case and strengthen yours.

To clarify matters I will use the number system they use.

 

18] IPC is well known to operate a Kangaroo Court where very few appeals are granted -less than 5% so little point in appealing

 

20]  the NTK was issued outside of the terms of PoFA thus rendering the NTK non compliant. However the incompetents at BWL had already stated that they were pursuing the keeper in a letter to the keeper and it is reasonable to assume that they are still ding so as they have stated nothing to the contrary. 

As they are pursuing you as the keeper yet there is no keeper liability you can ask the Court respectfully to throw out this case.

[on the 16th April 2021 DCBL wrote in response to your snotty letter  that they were pursuing you as the keeper so they did not have to prove who was the driver.] As they have still failed to prove who the driver was, save by assumption, their case is lost. {Bobby you must include BWL's letter from the 16th in your WS]

 

23] the fact that the car was discovered to have a puncture when it was very dark and no chance of obtaining a Permit it was a case of frustration of contract  as it was too dark to change the tyre and the car was not driveable.

 

 

30] the car was parked before the 11.59 pm  to 6am rule came into force and was intended to leave before the permit time began. So no breach and then there was the frustration of contract

 

32?] [There is no number against this one] Time and time again these quasi legal companies acting for private parking companies quote PE V Beavis as their life saver and panacea when all else fails. The Noble Judges in that case were at pains to point out that their findings were only relevant to their particular case. This case is completely different it is a small layby with no apparent signage devoted to it and involves parking with Permits which Beavis did not. And when the car was parked the contract, if there was one, did not come into force until 11.59pm.

 

I'll deal with the Costs of recovery tomorrow.

 

If the Court finds that BWL were not pursuing the keeper and there was no frustration of contract then there is still the facts that the photos of the car do not show where it was parked even, let alone where there may have been any relevant signage. They have no photographs of the actual area nor even where the car was parked. Instead we ave artists impressions of where they would like their signage to be rather than perhaps  where it actually is.  The whole case is a dog's breakfast. 

And they certainly have not provided any proof at all that the keeper was the driver let alone strict proof which should be necessary. And Keeper liability was lost back in November 2020. So to continue pursuing the keeper as stated by BWL is an infringement of the GDPR of  the driver and harassment of the keeper especially by bringing them to Court as the keeper when it should have been known that the keeper was not liable.

 

 

[brassnecked]

Within the idea of a contract they allege as no permit = no park its a prohibition so no contract can ever be formed, their remedy would be trespass, the landowner only can sue for trespass as has been stated, which then brings up what amount of Damage or Loss in a permit only car park with no idea of permit cost can the Landowner sue for.

 

With the contributions of FTMDave, and lookedinforinfo, and Fruitsalad1010 there is enough to sink them with their woefuul case.

[Bobbynub]

Thanks you all so much once again, please find attached the revised WS. I am unsure as to whether to keep certain bits about the contract in, as they have provided a copy of the contract within their WS on P1 at the end of the WS.

 

I am also slightly unsure about point 11 of my WS.

 

Any advice would be much appreciated.

 

Many thanks.

PCN Witness Statement CAG REV 3.pdf

[FTMDave]

On a first read it comes across very powerfully.  You've put a huge amount of work into this - and Armtrack will not be happy!  Will have another read now and maybe suggest the odd small tweak.

[Bobbynub]

Thanks very much Dave, all thanks to the tremendous help from you guys though!

[FTMDave]

Not essential but you could add in (3 a) that it would have been dangerous to try to repair the car in the dark.

 

Cut out (4 f).  I don't understand how the driver's GDPR can be infringed as the whole point is that the driver is not involved in the case.  Going through the legal procedure of the county courts is not harassment either.

 

In (6) I'm not sure if the correct term is "force majeure" or "frustration of contract" so, belt & braces, in (6 a) maybe better to write "...this case is a force majeure/frustration of contract event ..."

 

In (7) point taken that they did finally produce a contract.  Cut out "At the time of writing" and change "has failed" to "failed".  In (7 c) "these documents" becomes "this document".  (7 d) & (7 e) "Armtrac not "Amtrac" (my bad!!!)  (7 d) cut out the sentence that starts "It is contended ..."  In the next sentence "refused" rather than "have refused".

 

I'm not sure about (11).  I don't think you should be doing their work for them by admitting there are other signs.  Personally I'd leave this bit out.

 

In (13) I've messed up again so there is a couple of "Amtrack" rather than "Armtrack"s.

 

The rest is superb - well done.

 

If you can, as there are a number of Night Owls on CAG (including me) I suggest you wait till as late as possible this evening and then e-mail the court their copy.  Make sure the case number and the two parties are named in the subject field.  Obviously request a receipt.

 

You can then send the fleecers theirs tomorrow.  Get a free CoP.

[Bobbynub]

That's brilliant, thanks very much once again Dave, I've just made the updates now  

 

 

[Bobbynub]

I won't be able to wait until late this evening unfortunately - I'm only going to have access to a printer for the next hour and a half, and so I'll have to print off my WS in that time as I won't have access to one again for a few days

[brassnecked]

Its the Keeper GDPR that's breached as no pofa means no right to pursue, that's for after you see them off though with FTMDave's suggestions looks great.

[Bobbynub]

Thanks very much Brassnecked.

 

Please find attached a final copy of my WS. 

 

One more question - I have used a photo from the Claimant's WS as my own evidence (the picture of the punctured tyre). Am I allowed to do this?

 

Also, as I am emailing the WS to the court, is an electronic signature okay, or do I have to print the WS, sign it by hand, and then scan the WS?

Shall I send a copy of my WS to both BWL and Armtrac?

 

PCN Witness Statement Final Rev CAG.pdf

[dx100uk]

a ws must be signed, as you see theirs is, and as the court document stated -  you exchanged with a claimants solicitor. so just do that for the last page of your text. BUT!! - i believe your end statement about the truth etc needs updating to the new version too.

 

you also should be including a list of exhibits before that section, again as they have done.

 

[FTMDave]

I don't know if it's too late to post this, but ...

 

The photo is OK.

 

Send the WS to the fleecers' solicitors.

 

It needs to be signed, but you can copy & paste a signature if you want.

 

I think the Statement of Truth should be:

 

Statement of truth

I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement of claim are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

 

Edited January 31, 2022 by FTMDave
Typo

[lookinforinfo]

I am sorry to be so late about extra charges  but you can I think mention these since it was a topic in your WS.

 

The Office of Fair Trading   [OFT }brought out a Debt Guidance  years ago which is still referred to. Indeed the ICO said they would stand by it when the OFT was taken over.

 

This is what the OFT said about Charging for Debt Collection 

Charging for debt collection

2.9 Charges should not be levied unfairly.

2.10 Examples of unfair practices are as follows:

a. claiming collection costs from a debtor in the absence of express contractual or other legal provision b. misleading debtors into believing they are legally liable to pay collection charges when this is not the case, e.g. when there is no contractual provision

c. not giving an indication in credit agreements of the amount of any charges payable on default

d. applying unreasonable charges, e.g. charges not based on actual and necessary costs e. applying charges which are disproportionate to the main debt.

 

It is doubtful that simply stating on their T&CS that further costs may be charged is too vague to form a contract with motorists and certainly not when the motorist had no say in it. Especially as the charges ARE disproportionate to the main debt. £70 was an arbitrary figure made up by the IPC which they thought was a sum of money which they thought would slip Judges without too much demur.

 

And strangely enough all the crooks in IPC's membership found that in every case their debt collection costs were £60 or £70 despite the fact that they are a relatively recent addition to the scumbags repertoire. Were they all actual and necessary costs or  was it a case that all the had a greed [not agreed] to squeeze as much money as they could from motorists.