Premier/BW ANPR PCN claimform - Overstay - Lldl & PureGym 20 Castle Bridge Rd Notts NG7 IGX - Help with WS ***Claim Dismissed****

[lookinforinfo]

If you read the Vectos car park plan carefully it does not say that permission was granted. It does say that permission was granted for them to make an application. I can see no record on the planning portal that the parking was agreed for 2 hours. I think you should contact the Planning dept using Vectos's application numbers and see if they were ever approved as these were done back in 2018before Lidl was even open.

Alternatively put  Premier Park to strict proof that their application was approved and the length of stay confirmed since the Council looked at them in SEP 2018 which was several months before Lidl opened.

 

After Lidl had their personal signage and the Gym had their personal signage approved in early 2019, there is no planning approval after that  for ANPR cameras or car parking.

 

[FTMDave]

Brilliantly spotted LFI.

[FTMDave]

Just thinking.

 

Even if, by some freak, the fleecers were to bring up the government Code of Practice, which so far they never have ...

 

... the legal challenge regards the level of the parking invoices and whether they can add debt collection charges.  Signage is not part of the legal challenge.

[goofa316]

Hi,

 

Thanks for the info I have modified the statement and  highlighted changes in red

 

Let me know what you think.

witness-puregym-v2.pdf

[FTMDave]

What you've prepared is great, but sometimes the excellent points you make are not in the part where you are making the relevant legal argument.

 

3.4 & 3.5 need to become 2.12 & 2.13.

 

The rest seems to be fine but I'm knackered after work and looking after my COVID-positive son.  Please move those two paragraphs around and we can have another go tomorrow.

 

[goofa316]

Thanks again, hope you sons  feeling better!.

 

I have amended the statement and attached

witness-puregym-v3.pdf

[lookinforinfo]

FTMDave I thought it was strange  that goofa316  found the Vectos plan and I didn't see it when I was checking.

 

I have now found it on the planning portal  which appears to be mixed in with a planning application by Dixons Carphone. They later allow planning permission for work to go ahead though under the car parking section they just say  that the designated car parking area should be kept as a car parking area-but this is a result of a company called Indigo asking for PP> not Vectos and there appears to be no confirmation that hours of parking were mentioned.  And I imagine that once it was Lidl who were the incoming supermarket that numbers of expected  vehicles in the car park would have had to be increased. In addition it looked as if there were other companies and restaurants arriving which would have made the two  hour stipulation too short and probably doubtful that Lidl would have agreed to two hours.

 

There is a possibility that DCBL are trying to pull a fast one by showing the Vectos application though it may not have ever been ratified and nothing was ever approved ANPT wise or signage after January 2019 when Lidll opened. I would put them to strict proof that Premier have pp at all for its signs, ANPR or the two hour limit.

 

To continue where FTMDave left off about the suspension of the new COP I would add this. The Act was issued in February of this year with the recommendation that those changes that can be brought in straight away, should be. And the others which will take time such as new style PCNs that look and sound totally different from the Council Penalty Charge Notices will become Law later. It is obvious that the Government wants to make changes and to clarify the existing PoFA2012 and while the suspension is only temporary it is only right that parking companies should be amending their practices to reflect the new Law. That most of them are not would suggest that they are ignoring the Law and probably breaking it too. You should point out in Court  [your WS]   the crooks should be observing the new Act and that Judges should be taking iti in to consideration now . 

 

After all, the Government were scathing about many of the practices employed by the rogues and want them stopped asap.

 

 

[FTMDave]

My son's well on the road to recovery.  Thanks.

 

Great work with the WS.

 

In 2.12 & 2.13 your refer to the government "Code of Conduct", it should be "Code of Practice", not that it makes much difference.

 

Your might as well beef up 3.3.  Leave what you've written but add an extra sentence at the end "In addition the Claimant has unilaterally changed the period of free parking from three hours to two hours without having the change authorised by the local council".

 

Cut out 5.2 b.  But beef up the LOCUS STANDI section with a conclusion 5.3.  "5.3  The Claimant has not provided this document.  The Claimant is not the landowner, merely someone who, supposedly, organises parking.  i do not believe that the Claimant has the right to bring this claim under their own name".

[goofa316]

Thanks, amended and attached  with the info above,  let me know what you think

 

I am planning on emailing my final witness statement to the court just wondering whether it needs to be emailed to the fleecers as well or will snail mail do ?

 

Thanks,

witness-puregym-v4.pdf

[FTMDave]

Best not to give any e-mail address to the fleecers.  We've seen examples of them e-mailing statements with lies one minute to the court deadline when you have no chance to reply.  Force them to use snail mail.

[FTMDave]

When is the deadline for filing?

 

Have the fleecers sent you a WS?

[FTMDave]

The paragraph immediately before ILLEGAL SIGNAGE needs to be changed.  The Act is actually from 2019, it's the CoP that was published in February.  I also don't think you should be highlighting that the CoP is temporarily suspended.  Let the fleecers bring that up, if they have the intelligence which I doubt.

 

Apart from that your WS is superb and ready to go.

 

The Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 led to the publication of the government's Code of Practice in February of this year with the recommendation that those changes that can be brought in straight away, should be. And the others which will take time such as new style PCNs that look and sound totally different from the Council Penalty Charge Notices will become Law later. It is obvious that the Government wants to make changes and to clarify the existing PoFA2012 and it is only right that parking companies should be amending their practices to reflect the new Law.

[lookinforinfo]

Try not to send your WS off before they send you theirs. But regardless, do get yours to the Court in time and tell the Court that you have not received theirs.

When sending your WS just get a proof of posting do not send recorded or signature required.

[brassnecked]

Deffo no email address, and as to the reason not to used signed for, wi and usingFree proof Of Posting instead , the letter/documents are legally  deemed delivered two working days after posting.  Fleecer's and dodgy solicitors have been known to refuse signed for mail if it looks bulky enough to be a WS, then claim in court they haven't had it.

[goofa316]

Thanks for the advice witness statement updated, Deadline is 15th July, Should I email my Witness statement to the court tomorrow morning and post to fleecers tomorrow as well ?

[FTMDave]

I would e-mail the court their copy on the 15th, and post the fleecers theirs 1st class the same day.

 

Yes, it will mean the fleecers will get theirs a day late but as a Litigant-in-Person you are allowed leeway and as the fleecers have sent nothing they can hardly complain.

 

This also gives you the change to either ridicule the fleecers' WS should it arrive, or point out to the Court that the fleecers are defying court orders should it not arrive.

[goofa316]

hey guys, bwlegal have sent their witness statement, I have scanned in their response. They have sent images where it states the car park is 3 hrs (page 31) , then another which says 2hrs (page 33)

 

Please let me know whether I need to modify my witness statement in relation to anything thing they have sent.

 

 

fleecers_witness2_compressed.pdf

[dx100uk]

opps bang shot themselves in the foot!!

 

[Nicky Boy]

Hi there,

Just one item I noticed on a quick scan of their WS...  Pages 13, 15, 16 and 19 pictures are all datestamped 5 days before the "site specific agreement" was signed.
Something odd going on there.

[FTMDave]

There is loads to plough through, but for a start - new points 2.14 & 2.15.

 

2.14  The Claimant's Witness Statement author states (para 10) "Signage - I am instructed these were in situ on the day of the contravention".  She may well have been so instructed, but the signs were not there. 

 

2.15  However, had they been there as she maintains, they would in any case have been extremely confusing.  Some of the signs she has produced state "Lidl and PureGym.  Customer Parking Only.  Max stay 2 hrs" whereas others state "Lidl and PureGym.  Customer Parking Only.  Max stay 3 hrs".  A motorist wouldn't have understood how long they could park.  It is agreed by both parties that the Defendant did not stay longer than three hours.  Consumer law states that if an offer is confusing then the interpretation most in the consumer's favour should be chosen.  The Claimant's representative states that there were signs present allowing three hours' free parking. 

 

You need to look up the point of law I mention at the end, I've heard it but haven't found the actual law.

[FTMDave]

New 3.4.

 

3.4  The Claimant's Witness Statement author does not deny the above, she merely states (para 39) that no enforcement action has yet been taken.  In simple English - "they haven't been caught yet guv".

[FTMDave]

Did you use the MSE site?

 

Did you ignore a Letter of Claim as she says?

[goofa316]

MSe site was used for my defence way back in December before i was aware of this site.

 

Any letter of claim that was sent by the courts has been responded to and responses sent to both court and bwlegal. The request for cpr was sent in December and a response was received at the end of March.

Snail mail used for all responses, no recorded just normal post.

[FTMDave]

Thanks.

 

This is important - when Premier Park or BW Legal sent a Letter of Claim, did you answer them?  She says you didn't.  Also -

 

New 3.5.

 

3.5  The Claimant's Witness Statement author mentions the British Parking Association's Code of Practice (para 5 & para 9 & para 44).  By signing the CoP the Claimant guarantees to have obtained all legal permissions.  Yet they have not done so.

 

Add to the end of your current point 4

 

In para 13 and para 45.1 the Claimant once again attempts to mix up "driver" and "keeper" although they must be well aware that they are two completely separate legal entities.

 

[goofa316]

So anything sent from premier park or bw legal I did not answer.