Park Watch - Lease Car ANPR PCN Claimform - No Waiting - CROSSGATES SHOPPING CENTRE-CENTRE MANAGEMENT SUITE, LEEDS LS15 8ET *** Claim Dismissed***

[FTMDave]

That's far too short, isn't set out like a WS should be and doesn't include several of the legal arguments in your favour.

 

If you scroll up to the posts 8 and 9 posts above this one, there is an example of what a WS should look like and the legal arguments are set out.

[lookinforinfo]

@ShadesVFR "I have just noticed on the original PCN, which was sent late, they do mention that I am the hirer of the vehicle. Does this negate the Notice to Keeper / Notice to Hirer argument ?"

 

The PCN you received should be an updated version of the  one that would have been sent to the registered keeper. When the RK sent your information to Park Watch they  should have sent to you a Notice to Hirer  [even if it wasn't called that ] explained that they received your details from the RK , sent copies of all the paperwork sent by the RK and given you 21 days to pay the charge.

As they did not comply with PoFA with their Notice to Hirer partly because they gave you 28 days notice but also because when they sent you the PCN, they should have sent you a copy of the PCN they sent the RK complete with the relevant dates of the alleged offence and the date they sent the PCN to the RK. You should also have received  copies of the data sent by the RK in order to ascertain that what the RK said agrees with your understanding of the agreement that you have with the RK. This is important as it allows you to ensure that the RK has given  the right information to Park Watch.

 

One can only assume that the PCN sent to the RK was sent within the correct time and the wording complied with PoFA. Had it not been then  you would have had a reason to claim the Park had no claim against you as the original PCN was not compliant. These are all reasons why you should have received all the information necessary to comply with PoFA. As you didn't receive it Park have failed to comply with the Act.

According to PoFA the only way Park can pursue you as the hirer as if they comply with the stipulations within PoFA.  They haven't.

 

It is not a question of negating the NTK/NTH . It is they have failed to comply with PoFA by not sending the other paperwork from the RK and they have given you 28 days  time to pay as opposed to 21 days. So they have no right in Law to pursue you. Once you include that in your WS they really should not continue with your case. The sections of the Act they failed on have already been explained in my post 65 and which you should include in your WS so that the Judge is well clued up should it get to Court. 

 

 

[ShadesVFR]

So Gladstones Solicitors are not appearing in court and have sent the attached witness statement. Paragraph 20 makes good reading, but they have also sent a different sign to the one provided in the CPR 31.4 ???

 

claimants WS.pdf

[FTMDave]

Well you might as well have not bothered uploading Gladdy's bilge.  It basically says nothing except "He parked in a no waiting area".

 

The contract is rubbish with most of it redacted, and it doesn't give Park Watch the right to sue under their own name.

 

You say the sign is different too - the judge won't like that.

 

Time to produce a detailed WS that deals with all six of the legal points upthread.  Tick, tock.

 

 

Edited February 24, 2023 by FTMDave
Typo

[dx100uk]

next time use the PDFMERGE website listed in UPLOAD and put everything in one mass pdf....

[dx100uk]

not all exhibits listed in that WS are in your upload?

 

 

[FTMDave]

Aye, took half the evening to download.

 

The upload guide does ask to put everything in one file and gives details of free software that can do the biz in a few seconds.

[Nicky Boy]

Reading the fleecers pants Witness Statement (sworn to be the truth!)...

 

20. As a result of the above the Claimant obtained the details of the vehicles registered keeper from
the DVLA, under the terms of the KADOE. The Defendant was named as the Registered Keeper...
The Claimant issued a postal PCN to the Defendant as they were the Registered Keeper of the vehicle Exhibit GS5.

 

The Defendant is not, and never has been, the registered keeper of the vehicle.

21. The PCN gave the Registered Keeper three options:
i. To pay the PCN;
ii. If they were not the driver to provide the Claimant with the driver's full name and a
serviceable address, in order that liability could be transferred; and
iii. To appeal the PCN initially via the Claimants internal appeals process and then if
dissatisfied by the outcome to appeal the PCN to the IAS.

22. No payment was made and no response was received, the Claimant therefore issued a liability notice Exhibit reference GS6.

 

If 21 and 22 are the truth (as sworn by the witness), the claimant should be pursuing the registered keeper... Not the defendant.

 

Any thoughts guys?

Edited February 24, 2023 by Nicky Boy

[lookinforinfo]

The contract looks awfully short and does not give Park permission to prosecute motorists who breach the terms. . The contract has redacted the signatories and it is apparently signed by managing agents. there should therefore be an authorisation from the land owner that they are allowed to sign on behalf of the landowner.  Not a clue what date the contract was signed.

No photos of your car and where it was parked. No map  of the land that the contract refers to nor any photos of the signage in the car park.

 

 

[Nicky Boy]

In light of the above outright lies in the witness statement, I think you should also require their witness to appear in person for clarification.

 

How do you know they aren't going to attend?

[AndyOrch]

Quote

So Gladstones Solicitors are not appearing in court and have sent the attached witness statement. 

 

Have they served notice on you and the court pursuant to section 27.9 CPR ?

[Nicky Boy]

More on their witness statement...

 

6. The Claimant is and was at all material times a member of an Accredited Trade Association
(ATA) as evidenced by the logo displayed on the signage at the site and the Claimants
correspondence.

 

Forgive me if I'm blind, but I can't see them listed as a member of the BPA "as evidenced by the displayed logo"...

 

BPA Members

WWW.BRITISHPARKING.CO.UK

 

[brassnecked]

There is enough in that WS to use against them Now didn't Will & John have a falling out with the BPA and started the IPA up?

[FTMDave]

Well spotted Nicky Boy.

 

They are a member of the IPC  https://www.parkwatch.tech/

 

Dear, dear, dear, putting the wrong trade association logo on their signs.

[Nicky Boy]

I only went looking because of the vague way it was written in the witness statement. He knows exactly what he's doing and should be compelled to attend court, even if it means an adjournment to get him there...

[ShadesVFR]

They have served pursuant to CPR 27.9.

 

The other exhibits are already posted up earlier in the thread. Only attached new ones.

 

The Court has been notified of the Claimants non attendance and the court has been asked to deal with the claim in the claimants absence.

[lookinforinfo]

Shades are you sure you didn't receive the missing documents I outlined on post 85. i note that the sheets were numbered and there were no more after that?

If not I cannot imagine that Park will be happy bunnies. Ok they have lost the case anyway but it's just the incompetence of the whole WS. I mean Walli and Ambreen are very long winded and do come up with some very fanciful reasons for motorists breaching the T&Cs but Gladstones have really blown it bigly  here as Trump might have said.

[ShadesVFR]

They sent the same map of the car park as the CPR 31.4 and the photos are on the original PCN. Still not timestamped and according to them 13.46.

[Nicky Boy]

Is Craig Hood a new name on witness statements and more importantly, is he Robin's brother?

[lookinforinfo]

Their WS is a total pigs ear.

Gladstones have failed to identify that the defendant's vehicle was on hire despite it being mentioned on the Notice to Driver. As a result they have not included a copy of the original Notice to Keeper that would have been sent to the Registered Keeper.  The Paralegal continues to refer to the Defendant as the Registered keeper when they are not. The hire/lease company is the Registered keeper.

There are many reasons why the Notice to Driver fails to comply with PoFA. including no Period of parking mentioned-not even on the photos; the Defendant is given 28 days to pay the charge when according to PoFA a Notice to Hirer is only entitled to 21 days. No Waiting signs cannot offer a contract as the sign is prohibitive; the required documents from the hire company plus a copy of the original PCN were not sent to the Defendant.  As a result Park Watch have failed to comply with POFA under Schedule 4 S14 [2]  so it would appear that it is the solicitors who have failed to understand the requirements of PoFA.

 

Further, on the contract itself there is no reference to Park Watch being permitted to take legal proceedings against motorists who are in breach of the Terms and Conditions which the Defendant denies being in breach in any case.

The  signatures on the contract  have been redacted so there is no way that the Defendant can verify them and which company signed they represented. It appears that one are managing agents but there is no authorisation from the land owner that the agents can sign on their behalf. The contract fails therefore to be proved to be validly executed.

[ShadesVFR]

The court hearing is a telephone conference call for some reason, but I dare say they won't pay the court fee once they receive my WS anyway.

 

[Nicky Boy]

Telephone eh?

That means "Robin Hood" has absolutely no reason for non-attendance. 

You might still get a chance to show him up in front of the judge yet.

Huh, "the defendant has no idea about POFA" indeed!

 

You can highlight his own lack of knowledge of POFA...

Edited February 25, 2023 by Nicky Boy

[FTMDave]

Yes, i saw that and the comment about "My Company would like the Court to note that the Defendant is using a generic defence which can be found on the internet".

 

I thought Shades should include a short paragraph in their WS : "The Defendant would like the Court to note that the Claimant's solicitor is using a generic Witness Statement of which 90% describes the Claimant's business and has no relevance to the dispute in question". 

[brassnecked]

That response regarding the generic Cut 'n paste WS from the fleecer need to be part of any Defence WS also Good for the goose etc.......

[ShadesVFR]

Judge threw the claim out after the first paragraph. They didn't provide relevant paperwork therefore no case to answer. 

 

Cheers peeps. Another victory against the bully boys.