UKPCL ANPR PCN claimform - overstay - MCDONALDS· WAKEFIELD 2 569, DEWSBURY ROAD WAKEFIELD WF2 9BY ***Claim Discontinued***

[FTMDave]

If you get no luck with the local branch then e-mail the CEO  https://www.ceoemail.com/s.php?id=ceo-8918

 

Obviously include proof of purchase and lay it on thick that you "overstayed" as you were spending a load of money in McDonalds, which is surely what they want!

 

And as Bazooka Boo has already asked, please fill in the sticky, we may well have threads on this car park and there is likely to be a lot wrong legally with the fleecers' paperwork.

[FTMDave]

I doubt very much that no-one will check the e-mails of the CEO of McDonald's until 9 August!

 

I'm bemused as to why you e-mailed him today rather than nearly three months ago when we gave you the address.

 

As for the fleecers' threats - they haven't sent a Letter of Claim so you can ignore their bluster.

[FTMDave]

That's a disgraceful reply from McDonald's.  However, it was worth a try.

 

You can't magically stop UKPC from writing to you (unless you give in).

 

However, as dx says, unless/until they send you a Letter of Claim it's all hot air from paper tigers.

 

Come back here if a LoC arrives.

[FTMDave]

BTW, do you know why the idiots started writing to your parents' address?

[FTMDave]

If you read other threads, you'll see the fleecers never charge anything.

 

Indeed most of the time they don't reply to CPR requests - which is great, as you can later show them up for refusing to produce important legal documents.

[FTMDave]

Briefly, you are in a court case now.  You have to concentrate on winning in court. 

All the previous "snotty letter" ideas about dissuading the PPC from taking you to court are far too late now.

[FTMDave]

Is this harsh?  Yes.  But you're stuck with it.  It's a court order.  The courts are understaffed and overworked and things being done late is unfortunately par for the course.

You need to get on with your WS.  Surely you have a vague idea already after all these months.

I see Andy has beaten me to it!  They have forgotten to send the Notice of Hearing.  If you can ring Boston County Court now.

 

[FTMDave]

That's my evening activity sorted then!

[FTMDave]

Firstly, to answer your questions.

All the bully boy tactics, refusing to stop using e-mail, etc., means they are arrogant, nasty pieces of work, but that has absolutely nothing to do with whether you entered a contract with them that day and agreed to pay them £100.  So forget this peripheral stuff.  In fact judges appreciate concise arguments.

I don't want to knacker what you've prepared so there is another version below with answers to your points or my own suggested changes in blue.

I think your big problem is going to be that 50 minutes is a long time to overstay.  Anything that justifies that is extremely important.

You mention your friends were ill and at the start of the thread mention they were hungover.  is there any way that could be claimed as a medical emergency?  I ask as there is a legal term called Frustration of Contract which means it was impossible to respect the contract.  For example, if a car breaks down it's obviously going to stay longer than the 90 minutes but that is not the motorist's fault.

Any proof of the continual purchase of food would be good too as there is another concept of an Unfair Term.  If the signs state they are allowed to burn your house down if you stay longer than 30 seconds it is an Unfair Term as it is impossible to order & eat a meal in 30 seconds.  Ninety minutes might be fine for most customers but might be unfair for someone continually adding to the initial order.  I doubt a kid's birthday party has got be over & done with in 90 minutes for example.

 

Witness Statement of XXXXX

INTRODUCTION

1.  I, XXXXX am the Defendant in this claim. I represent myself as a lay person, with no formal legal training. Everything in the following statement is true to the best of my knowledge and belief. 

2.  I was the registered keeper of the vehicle: XXXXXX

3.  In my statement I shall refer to exhibits within the evidence section supplied in this bundle referring to page and reference numbers where appropriate. 

4.  The claimant has failed to show a cause for action by NOT supplying documents requested in a CPR 31.14 request for documents and state that you think the claim should be summarily dismissed under CPR 16.4(4) (Unsure if this applies, they responded to the request with pictures of signs, copy of PCN, but no contract between UKPC & McDonalds or planning permission for signage)   No need for this para, you make those arguments later on

BACKGROUND

Defendant received the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) on 22nd April 2022 (Exhibit 1) following the vehicle being parked at McDonalds - Wakefield 2 - 569, WF2 9BY on 17th April 2022 which is 5 days after the contravention. The car park in question was almost empty and being used for the sole purpose of purchasing McDonalds goods. The driver "overstayed" as two friends were not feeling well, so continued to stay in McDonalds until they felt better, frequently purchasing McDonalds goods. (Is it worth adding the personal touch here, or deleting everything after "contravention"?)  I reckon it's fine as is, you're giving good reasons for the "overstay".

LOCUS STANDI

6.1.  No Locus Standi, I do not believe a contract exists with the landowner that gives UK Parking Control Ltd a right to bring claims in their own name, no contract has been produced after my CPR request (Exhibit 2). A picture of a sign (Exhibit 3) stating they are acting on behalf of McDonalds is not the same as producing a contract.
 
Definition of “Relevant contract” From PoFA 2[1] means a contract Including a contract arising only when the vehicle was parked on the relevant land between the driver and a person who is-
(a) the owner or occupier of the land; or
(b) Authorised, under or by virtue of arrangements made by the owner or occupier of the land, to enter into a contract with the driver requiring the payment of parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on the land. According to Companies Act 2006, Section 44. (  If you want to quote the Act you need to do so, not include a link.

Companies Act 2006

WWW.LEGISLATION.GOV.UK

---

An Act to reform company law and restate the greater part of the enactments relating to companies; to make other provision relating to companies and other forms of business organisation; to make...

NO KEEPER LIABILITY

6.2 The PCN document sent by DCB Legal following the defendants CPR request, clearly states the arrival time of the vehicle, and the departure time of the vehicle. It does not take into account relative delays of the McDonalds site e.g. drive thru, parking, deliveries, traffic. The defendant puts it to the claimant a request for strict proof the car was specifically parked for longer than the allowed duration.

You need to add LFI's comments here about them not respecting POFA.

ILLEGAL SIGNAGE

7.1. At the time of writing the claimant has failed to provide the following, in response to the CPR request from myself, and has provided no Witness Statement with evidence. 

7.2 The legal contract between the Claimant and the landowner (which in this case is McDonalds) to provide evidence that there is an agreement in place with landowner with the necessary authority to issue parking charge notices and to pursue payment by means of litigation. 

The Claimant has produced no Witness Statement. 

7.3 Proof of planning permission granted for signage etc. under the Town and Country Planning Act 2007. Lack of planning permission is a criminal offence under this Act and no contract can be formed where criminality is involved.  (In another thread, this was "Town and Country Planning Act 1990 -> Is 2007 the correct one (I referred 2007 in my CPR31.14)  Not sure, see what the others say.

7.4 Due to the failure to produce the documents in the 14-day duration following my CPR 31.14 Request dated 31/03/2023, or at all, I do not believe the claimant possesses these documents 

UNFAIR PCN

I would remove lots, if not the whole of this section.  The PCN does mention 90 minutes' maximum, there was a chance to appeal, etc. 

However, Andyorch's suggestion about PAPLOC does need to go somewhere:

The Claimant has not complied with paragraph 3 of the PAPLOC (Pre-Action Protocol).  They failed to serve a letter of claim pre claim pursuant to PAPLOC changes of the 1st October 2017.  It is respectfully requested that the court take this into consideration pursuant to 7.1 PAPLOC.

8.1. The PCN provided as part of the claim does not establish the duration in which the defendant was parked, only the arrival time of entering the site, and the departure time. 

8.2 The PCN provided as part of the claim does not establish clearly, and explicitly, what the defendant was being charged for. It is titled "Parking" Charge, and refers to staying for longer than duration allowed, this is confusing. This de facto removes any chance for the defendant to appeal as there is no clear, explicit explanation for the charge. 

8.3 The Claimant did not respect PAPLOC and never sent me a Letter Before Claim. 

8.4 It is unreasonable to delay litigation for so long to claim over a year additional in interest. 

8.5 I did not see the signage at the time, and was not aware of any parking restrictions on the McDonalds car park. The car park was being used as per its proper purpose.

8.6 The Claimant has not provided evidence the signage was in place at the time of the infringement. 

DOUBLE RECOVERY

9.1.   As well as the original £100 parking charge and £85 allowed court/legal costs, the Claimant seeks recovery of an additional £82.24

9.2.   PoFA Schedule 4, paragraph 4(5) states that “the maximum sum which may be recovered from the keeper is the amount specified in the notice to keeper”. Which in this case is £100.

9.3   The Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 is also quite clear that the maximum amount recoverable is £100.  Government ministers and government web pages explaining the Act refer to extra charges as "a rip off".  This has to go, the bloodsucking companies are legally challenging this point.

9.4.   Unless the Claimant can clearly demonstrate how these alleged additional costs have been incurred this would appear to be an attempt at double recovery.

9.5.   Previous parking charge cases have found that the parking charge itself is at a level to include the costs of recovery i.e. Parking Eye Ltd vs Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 which is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since the sum £85 was held to already incorporate the costs of an automated private parking business model and the Supreme Court Judges held that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead any part of their case in damages.

It is indisputable that an alleged “parking charge” penalty is a sum which the Supreme Court found is already inflated to more than comfortably cover all costs. The case provides a finding of fact by way of precedent, that the £85 (or up to a Trade Body ceiling of £100 depending on the parking firm) covers the costs of all the letters.

Since 2019, many County Courts have considered claims in excess of £100 to be an abuse of process leading to them being struck out ab initio.

An example, in the Caernarfon Court in VCS v Davies, case No. FTQZ4W28 on 4th September 2019, District Judge Jones-Evans stated “Upon it being recorded that District Judge Jones- Evans has over a very significant period of time warned advocates (...) in many cases of this nature before this court that their claim for £60 is unenforceable in law and is an abuse of process and is nothing more than a poor attempt to go behind the decision of the Supreme Court V Beavis which inter alia decided that a figure of £160 as a global sum claimed in this case would be a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore unenforceable in law and if the practise continued, he would treat all cases as a claim for £160 and therefore a penalty and unenforceable in law it is hereby declared (...) the claim is struck out and declared to be wholly without merit and an abuse of process.”

9.6.   In Claim numbers F0DP806M and F0DP201T, Britannia vs Crosby the courts went further in a landmark judgement in November 2019 which followed several parking charge claims being struck out in the area overseen by His Honour Judge Iain Hamilton-Douglas Hughes GC, the Designated Civil Judge for Dorset, Hampshire, Isle of Wight & Wiltshire. District Judge Taylor echoed earlier General Judgement or Orders of District Judge Grand, stating “It is ordered that the claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgement in Parking Eye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for a addi8onal sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998.

9.7.   The addition of costs not previously specified on signage are also in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, Schedule 2, specifically paras 6, 10 and 14.

9.8.   It is the Defendant’s position that the Claimant in this case has knowingly submitted inflated costs and thus the entire claim should be similarly struck out in accordance with Civil Procedure Rule 3.3(4).

9.9.   The Defendant is of the view that the Claimant knew, or should have known, that to claim in excess of £100 for a parking charge on private lands is disallowed under the CPRs, the Beavis case, the PoFA AND THE CRA 2015, and that relief from sanctions should be refused.

IN CONCLUSION

Whole section needs to go.  It has nothing to do with you breaching a contract with them or not.

10.1 I believe the claimant has become use to intimidation tactics and has gotten greedy. I believe the truth of the manor is the claimant has used bullying tactics successfully for too long and is therefore assured that innocent drivers will fall into the trap of paying rather than going through the hours it takes to defend themselves. In the process, wasting the time of the Court, the time of the Defendant and everyone else who has advised the Defendant, out of sheer decency to help have a fair hearing and see justice delivered. 

10.2 I am in disbelief that I am being heard in this court, defending myself nearly 2 years after receiving a charge through my door. I have had to spend weeks' worth of my life studying the letter of the law in order to defend myself from this ridiculous attempt at a swindle. 

Statement of Truth

10.3 I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement 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 December 30, 2023 by FTMDave
Extra info added

[FTMDave]

I've just noticed the deadline of 4pm on 2 January.  Damn, that is cutting it fine. 

I for one have an easy day tomorrow with a mighty one hour of work, so can help if you can do some work on the points mentioned.

No doubt your mates will, quite rightly, want to get back on the hangover bus tomorrow night, so if before the partying you can get them to dig out proof of purchase tomorrow and also write brief witness statements that they were ill that day all that would help.

[FTMDave]

A few quick things.

1.  You're a Litigant-in-Person, fighting a large company, if your WS is 24 hours late the court won't bat an eyelid.  In fact it's likely your WS will get there before UKPC's.

2.  If you can get a signature from your friends then you can do the WSs yourself.  It'd only be a couple of paragraphs about being ill.

3.  The only other thing from them you need is a photo/scan/something of the bank statements with proof of purchase after 10:10:57.

46 minutes ago, RyanB96 said:

it is very unlikely they will be able to find time, or want to

Well that's disappointing given you were helping them during illness and have ended up in court as a result.

[FTMDave]

Again, not wanting to knacker your version, some tweaks are below.

I've added sections UNFAIR TERM and FRUSTRATION OF CONTRACT but the sections will be weak if your friends don't cooperate.

LFI, is (10) correct re POFA?

 

Witness Statement of XXXXX

INTRODUCTION

1.  I, XXXXX am the Defendant in this claim. I represent myself as a lay person, with no formal legal training. Everything in the following statement is true to the best of my knowledge and belief. 

2.  I was the registered keeper of the vehicle: XXXXXX.

3.  In my statement I shall refer to exhibits within the evidence section supplied in this bundle referring to page and reference numbers where appropriate. 

BACKGROUND

4.  The Defendant received the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) on 22nd April 2022 (Exhibit 1) following the vehicle being parked at McDonald's - Wakefield 2 - 569, WF2 9BY on 17th April 2022 which is 5 days after the contravention. The car park in question was almost empty and being used for the sole purpose of purchasing McDonald's goods. The driver "overstayed" as two friends were not feeling well, so continued to stay in McDonald's until they felt better, frequently purchasing McDonald's goods. 

LOCUS STANDI

5  There is no Locus Standi.  I do not believe a contract exists with the landowner that gives UK Parking Control Ltd a right to bring claims in their own name, no contract has been produced after my CPR request (Exhibit 2). A picture of a sign (Exhibit 3) stating they are acting on behalf of McDonald's is not the same as producing a contract.
 
6.  The definition of “Relevant contract” from PoFA 2[1] means a contract, including a contract arising only when the vehicle was parked on the relevant land between the driver and a person who is-
(a) the owner or occupier of the land; or
(b) authorised, under or by virtue of arrangements made by the owner or occupier of the land, to enter into a contract with the driver requiring the payment of parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on the land.

According to Companies Act 2006, Section 44. 

44 Execution of documents

(1)Under the law of England and Wales or Northern Ireland a document is executed by a company—

(a)by the affixing of its common seal, or

(b)by signature in accordance with the following provisions.

(2)A document is validly executed by a company if it is signed on behalf of the company—

(a)by two authorised signatories, or

(b)by a director of the company in the presence of a witness who attests the signature.

(3)The following are “authorised signatories” for the purposes of subsection (2)—

(a)every director of the company, and

(b)in the case of a private company with a secretary or a public company, the secretary (or any joint secretary) of the company.

(4)A document signed in accordance with subsection (2) and expressed, in whatever words, to be executed by the company has the same effect as if executed under the common seal of the company.

(5)In favour of a purchaser a document is deemed to have been duly executed by a company if it purports to be signed in accordance with subsection (2).

A “purchaser” means a purchaser in good faith for valuable consideration and includes a lessee, mortgagee or other person who for valuable consideration acquires an interest in property.

(6)Where a document is to be signed by a person on behalf of more than one company, it is not duly signed by that person for the purposes of this section unless he signs it separately in each capacity.

(7)References in this section to a document being (or purporting to be) signed by a director or secretary are to be read, in a case where that office is held by a firm, as references to its being (or purporting to be) signed by an individual authorised by the firm to sign on its behalf.

(8)This section applies to a document that is (or purports to be) executed by a company in the name of or on behalf of another person whether or not that person is also a company.

Do you really need the quote from the Companies Act?  It is designed to show when a contract is rubbish.  But they haven't produced a rubbish contract.  They've produced no contract.

NO KEEPER LIABILITY

I've cut out the first paragraph here as it was repetitive.

7.  The PCN does not mention or specify the period of parking at all, only the duration of the stay defined by arrival and departure times. The duration of the stay includes driving to a space, parking, leaving the space, slow service at e.g. the drive thru, delays by traffic and is not the same as specifically the period of parking. In addition, there is a 5-minute consideration period and a further 10-minute grace period which are minimum times not rigid times. 

Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 . Under Section 9 [2][a] it states  

(2)The notice must—

(a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;

8.  The lack of a Parking Period means that the PCN does not comply with PoFA. and so the charge cannot be transferred from the driver to the keeper. Only the driver is liable.

9.  Schedule 4 of the PoFA, Section 9 [2][f] states: 

f. warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given—

(i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and

(ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver,

the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;

10.  The Claimant's PCN does not include the words in Section 9 [2][f] ii and therefore cannot transfer liability from the driver to the keeper.

11. The Claimant's Particulars of Claim state that the Claimant is pursuing the driver or the keeper. Given that the Claimant has no evidence who the driver is, the Claimant can pursue the Defendant only as the keeper, but cannot claim the Defendant is the driver as they have absolutely no proof. In this matter, the Defendant puts it to the Claimant to produce strict proof as to who was driving at the time. 

12.  As the Claimant cannot prove who was driving at the time, they can only pursue the Defendant as the keeper as being liable. It has already been ascertained that the keeper is not liable because UKPC have failed to comply with the Act.

Well done with tackling the POFA argument so well!

UNFAIR TERM

13.  Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 a term is unfair if it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations under the contract to the detriment of the consumer.

14.  Ninety minutes is sufficient time to eat a normal meal in a fast-food restaurant.  It would not be sufficient time, say, in which to hold a child's birthday party (during which of course purchases would be made far exceeding a normal fast food meal).

15.  In this case one member of the the driver's party made purchases at 09:34:32, 09:35:14 and 10:10:57 (Exhibit 4).  Other members made further purchases up until around 11:50.  Not one member of the party ever left McDonald's or stayed in the restaurant after consuming food.

16.  It is an unfair term to expect customers who were consuming food for nearly two and a quarter hours to only stay for one and a half hours.  They would have to consume the food before it was prepared or ordered!

FRUSTRATION OF CONTRACT

17.  The reason for purchasing so much food was that two of the party were feeling unwell and it was thought that by taking in nutrition and liquid it may have helped them feel better.

ILLEGAL SIGNAGE

18.   At the time of writing the claimant has failed to provide the following, in response to the CPR request from myself, and has provided no Witness Statement with evidence. 

19.  The legal contract between the Claimant and the landowner (which in this case is McDonald's) to provide evidence that there is an agreement in place with landowner with the necessary authority to issue parking charge notices and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

20.  Proof of planning permission granted for signage etc. under the Town and Country Planning Acts 1990 and 2007.  Lack of planning permission is a criminal offence under these Acts and no contract can be formed where criminality is involved. 

I've hedged our bets by putting both Acts.

21.  Due to the failure to produce the documents in the 14-day duration following my CPR 31.14 Request dated 31/03/2023, or at all, I do not believe the claimant possesses these documents 

ABUSE OF PROCESS

Irrelevant bits cut out here

22.  The Claimant has not complied with paragraph 3 of the PAPLOC (Pre-Action Protocol).  They failed to serve a letter of claim pre claim pursuant to PAPLOC changes of the 1st October 2017.  It is respectfully requested that the court take this into consideration pursuant to 7.1 PAPLOC.

23.  The Claimant has not respected the court deadline for filing and sending a Witness Statement.  I, as a lay person, have, despite having to compile the Statement during the Christmas period.  I respectfully request that the court disallow any Witness Statement by the Claimant which may be filed after the deadline.

DOUBLE RECOVERY

24.   As well as the original £100 parking charge and £85 allowed court/legal costs, the Claimant seeks recovery of an additional £70.

I think the figure is £70, the other stuff is interest which is allowed.

25.   PoFA Schedule 4, paragraph 4(5) states that “the maximum sum which may be recovered from the keeper is the amount specified in the notice to keeper”. Which in this case is £100.

26.   Unless the Claimant can clearly demonstrate how these alleged additional costs have been incurred this would appear to be an attempt at double recovery.

27.   Previous parking charge cases have found that the parking charge itself is at a level to include the costs of recovery i.e. Parking Eye Ltd vs Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 which is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since the sum £85 was held to already incorporate the costs of an automated private parking business model and the Supreme Court Judges held that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead any part of their case in damages.

28.  It is indisputable that an alleged “parking charge” penalty is a sum which the Supreme Court found is already inflated to more than comfortably cover all costs. The case provides a finding of fact by way of precedent, that the £85 (or up to a Trade Body ceiling of £100 depending on the parking firm) covers the costs of all the letters.

29.  Since 2019, many County Courts have considered claims in excess of £100 to be an abuse of process leading to them being struck out ab initio.

An example, in the Caernarfon Court in VCS v Davies, case No. FTQZ4W28 on 4th September 2019, District Judge Jones-Evans stated “Upon it being recorded that District Judge Jones- Evans has over a very significant period of time warned advocates (...) in many cases of this nature before this court that their claim for £60 is unenforceable in law and is an abuse of process and is nothing more than a poor attempt to go behind the decision of the Supreme Court V Beavis which inter alia decided that a figure of £160 as a global sum claimed in this case would be a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore unenforceable in law and if the practise continued, he would treat all cases as a claim for £160 and therefore a penalty and unenforceable in law it is hereby declared (...) the claim is struck out and declared to be wholly without merit and an abuse of process.”

30.   In Claim numbers F0DP806M and F0DP201T, Britannia vs Crosby the courts went further in a landmark judgement in November 2019 which followed several parking charge claims being struck out in the area overseen by His Honour Judge Iain Hamilton-Douglas Hughes GC, the Designated Civil Judge for Dorset, Hampshire, Isle of Wight & Wiltshire. District Judge Taylor echoed earlier General Judgement or Orders of District Judge Grand, stating “It is ordered that the claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgement in Parking Eye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for a additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998.

31.   The addition of costs not previously specified on signage are also in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, Schedule 2, specifically paras 6, 10 and 14.

32.   It is the Defendant’s position that the Claimant in this case has knowingly submitted inflated costs and thus the entire claim should be similarly struck out in accordance with Civil Procedure Rule 3.3(4).

33.   The Defendant is of the view that the Claimant knew, or should have known, that to claim in excess of £100 for a parking charge on private lands is disallowed under the CPRs, the Beavis case, the PoFA AND THE CRA 2015, and that relief from sanctions should be refused.

IN CONCLUSION

34.  I respectfully request that the Court dismiss this claim.

Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement 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 December 31, 2023 by FTMDave
Typos galore

[FTMDave]

Watch out that I left in about a million typos until a couple of minutes ago, when I've corrected them!

The problem of the 3 hours is that it was just speculation by LFI, we don't really know.  You need to see if the Council has a portal to look at planning permission, and if so look up how long was granted by the Council.

[FTMDave]

Can your mate who is away not just look at their on-line bank statement for 22 April last year?

Plus if they simply send a photo of a signature you can easily knock up a Witness Statement with them saying they were unwell.  It would be two paragraphs.

[FTMDave]

@lookinforinfo Thanks for the confirmation.

@RyanB96 Yes, that WS from your friend would be enough, it just needs the Statement of Truth and signature at the end.  Change "infringement" to "alleged infringement".

More in the morning.

[FTMDave]

You can save a few bob on postage by e-mailing the court.  Make sure that in the subject line you put the claim number, the names of the two parties, and "Witness Statement".  Obviously click on "return receipt" when you send it.

Send DCBL's theirs second class - as they are second class solicitors .- and get a free Certificate of Posting from the post office.

I've had a last read through and it looks great.

You need to put a heading at the start with the names of the parties, the name of the court and the claim number.

Have a look at the attachment in post 110 here and copy the same style  https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/421775-vcs-spycar-pcn-paploc-now-claimform-no-stopping-east-midlands-airport/page/5/#comments

If it's not in post 110 it'll be a couple of posts above or below, sometimes the post count goes wonky.

[FTMDave]

Well done on your victory! 

I was hoping that their lack of a WS meant discontinuance was a possibility, but in any case it's always better to prepare too much than too little!