Premier/Gladstone CCTV PCN Claimform - parked on DYL - euro car parts gatwick 80 crawley RH109pl *** Claim Dismissed***

[FTMDave]

The way you've gone about your WS is very different from the majority of other WSs here ... not necessarily worse ... just different.

Apart from sometimes jumping from one argument to another and back again most of it is good stuff.

The more time we have to work on it the better, which is why I asked what your deadline is.

 

[boxer1978]

Thanks for the feedback FTM .. I realise that some jumping back and forth was going on. 

I searched on here but struggled to find a similar case with a witness statement so had to source this WS template from outside this forum.

A few threads that looked similar are abandoned halfway.  Can you please point me to any good WS s that could apply in this case as well.

Deadline is around 15th Dec but the problem is that I will be going out of the country around that time so I wanted to file it by end of the month. 

The crux of the defence is 

1> Vague POC

2> Problems with Signage 

3> Double recovery & other fictitious costs

4> Non Compliance of POFA 

I just need to streamline (reduce) arguments on the first three and add points on the last point (POFA violations on the NTK)

 There are some other points that were raised earlier by dx , lookingforinfo and yourself  such as

-- on their use of CCTV instead of ANPR

-- should have been a manual windscreen PCN.  

-- confusing interpretation of DYL on private land

(but these are even harder to formulate as I couldnt find any reference WS)

PS: Do we need to repeat the defence in the WS verbatim. I read somewhere that its a good idea so added it in  

[FTMDave]

The end of the month is fine.

I have two busy days at work now but will be able to do some work on it on Friday and then over the weekend.

[FTMDave]

Just a couple of quick things before Friday.

Personally I would change your order of points to -

1> Vague POC

2> Problems with Signage 

3> Non Compliance of POFA 

4> Double recovery & other fictitious costs

This is because, although judges can chuck out the case due to fictitious costs, they hardly ever do.  So de facto you're inviting the judge to chuck out the claim on one of the first three points, and if then if they don't, to at least reduce the sum payable with the last point.

Regarding the Unicorn Food Tax, have a look at that section in the attachment in post 110 here  https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/421775-vcs-spycar-pcn-paploc-now-claimform-no-stopping-east-midlands-airport/page/5/#comments  as there may be arguments you can use.

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

Also have a look at the WS in post 149 here  https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/454551-opsdcbl-2xpcns-paploc-now-claimform-machine-said-not-in-use-llangrannog-beach-car-park-west-wales-claim-dismissed/page/6/#comments  (again I make it post 149 but it might be slightly above or below).

This WS was prepared in a huge hurry but in a sense I prefer this cut-down version.  Anyway have a butcher's at the Double Recovery section.

More on Friday.

[boxer1978]

Thanks Dave. 

Updated the WS and tried to streamline the arguments & removed the repeated defence.

Might need guidance on  

> keeping CRA breaches & Costs for defendant section (highlighted)

> Shall I add arguments about landowner authority / planning permission of signs  ( BTW they havent sent anything on the CPR 31 14 request)

 

WS-AMPPHRSHM-Redacted.pdf

[lookinforinfo]

You have composed a well written and well argued WS except for the fact that you have admitted being the driver.  Because the land is not relevant land they cannot pursue the keeper only the driver. That lessens their chances of winning as Judges do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person. 

So in point 3 you didn't visit Europarks, the driver did. And it was the driver, not you, that parked the car across the street. And APPARENTLY here was no clear no indication that there were any parking restrictions , as you want to give the impression that it wasn't you who was driving.

In point 12 you didn't revisit the site you visited it [giving the impression that this was the first time you had been there].

 

[Nicky Boy]

Just a quick thought...

I've looked back through the thread and noticed that you're doing all this on behalf of a friend.

Is this friend keeping up with what you're doing here?

If it actually does end up in court, HE will be the one presenting his case.

If he doesn't understand the legal arguments, this could all go belly up and waste all of your efforts.

[boxer1978]

Yes Nicky, its on behalf of the friend , I will walk him thru the main arguments and hopefully he does the needful. 

 

@lookinforinfo - thanks for the suggested edits, I will incorporate them in the WS. Will require some  thought.

 

 

Edited November 23, 2023 by boxer1978
comment

[boxer1978]

Updated WS as per lookingforinfo

WS-DvPP_RK_Redacted2.pdf

[boxer1978]

A few questions 

Do we need to send the W S to the Solicitors and the parking company as well?

What email ID do we use for sending WS to the court?   [email protected] Also , is there  any specific subject line guidelines on this?

Edited November 24, 2023 by boxer1978
change

[Nicky Boy]

Couple of "driver admissions" still left in the WS...

Para 14: "I" and "my"

Para 36 ii: "I" and "me"

[boxer1978]

thanks nicky . Updated

WS-AMvPP_RK_redacted2.pdf

[FTMDave]

Sorry for taking for ever to get back to you.

I like the way you've put headings on all your sub-sections so the legal points you're arguing are clear to the judge.

We don't normally use your Preliminary matter: Claim should be struck out arguments, not because your arguments aren't valid, they certainly are, but because you're unlikely to win just on that basis.  However, what you have written is short and to the point, so why not? 

What we have seen judges get annoyed about in the PoCs is the PPC mixing up "driver/keeper" and not stating whether they are using POFA or not, so I would include those points.

The rest is really, really good.  Well done.

 

[FTMDave]

To answer your questions - you file the WS with the court and also send a copy to the solicitors, not to the PPC themselves, so Gladstones in this case.

The e-mail address will depend on whichever court the case is at, your mate will need to look it up.  Is it not on the correspondence from the local court?

In the e-mail subject title it's a good idea to write "Witness Statement", the claim no., and the names of the two parties.

Edited November 25, 2023 by FTMDave
Typo

[lookinforinfo]

You still have one statement that needs rewriting in the third party.

"None of
this was agreed by me, let alone known or even seen as I attempted to gain entry to the store."

Also the PCN is non compliant with PoFA because under Schedule 4 S( [2][e] "

(e)state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper—

(i)to pay the unpaid parking charges; "

I don't see you have stated that in your WS ans it is the stronger point in getting the Judge to agree that the PCN fails to make the keeper responsible for the debt.

I agree with Dave that this is a WS and should be held up till the last minute. this does two things. First it doesn't allow Premier to see your arguments in order to counter them  before sending their WS to the Court. Second it does allow you to counter their arguments before you send your to Court.

At the moment all you need is a simple three or four point cheeky riposte to their claim to show that your friend won't be intimidated and Premier will have to go to Court with a poor case.

[dx100uk]

1. I am XXXX, i am the Register keeper of (reg no.) and the defendant against whom this claim is made. The facts
below are true to the best of my belief and my own knowledge.

3. On Friday, 6th August 2021, at approximately 15:20 PM, the driver visited the Euro Car Parts store in
Crawley to collect a part for the car. The Parking spaces (about 3-4) directly in front of the store were fully occupied. The driver stopped the car across the street from the Euro Car Parts Store and collected the car part and left within 10 minutes. There was no clear indication that there were any parking restrictions where the driver stopped.

12. Ambiguous Signage:

On visiting the site later, I saw that there is no signage as one enters or exits the (name the road). It is important to note that this area has a Toyota car dealership at the front with a big car park visible from the main road. (Exhibit xx-05)

Only after one drives about 50m after entering (name the road) there is a sign, on the left side that indicates some form of parking restrictions. It appears that the sign applies to the big car park on the left because it is placed at the entry of the said car park and NOT at the entry to the whole site from the main road. To reach Euro Car Parts store, one has to continue down the side street past the actual car park. It is therefore not
clear that any parking restrictions apply to the side street in addition to the actual car park. (Exhibit xx-05).

13. Signage obscured & improperly positioned on the wall:

On the same visit, I saw the long warehouse wall (against which the driver parked my car) had a couple of signs from Premier Park Limited. These signs are too far apart and are placed very low on the wall. One of the main signs is also blocked by a pipe running through the middle. (Exhibit xx-09) There is every likelihood that the sign is obscured by a high sided vehicle as it appears to be common on that street. (Exhibit xx-10) Presumably, this was the case on the day of the incident. - speclation remove it

15. Signage prohibitive - Upon further close inspection of the signage during the visit, the wording appears prohibitive, as it says, “No Parking on yellow lines or hatched areas (No Exceptions)” (Exhibit xx-08).

The verbiage does not provide an offer to park, so I don’t see how a contract can be formed between the driver and the claimant. As, the terms are forbidding, this means that there was never a contractual relationship. ADD: Any Markings upon roads on private land are mere tarmac graffiti and are not covered by any Applicable Laws or Traffic Regulation Orders enforceable by any local authority.

 

[boxer1978]

Thanks a lot for all the suggestions.. will incorporate them in the WS

[lookinforinfo]

I went back to your first post on this thread. The PCN that was apparently uploaded early in the thread appears to have disappeared but there is mention of the  breach occurring in the postcode RH10 9 PL. Yet Europarts claim their postcode on the Eezehaul road is RH10 9AN. So that would be another defence. I have checked using 

RH10 9PL maps, stats, and open data

WWW.GETTHEDATA.COM

---

Find data about postcode RH10 9PL including maps, open data, schools, flood risk, crime stats.

I also checked on there RH10 9AN. The PL postcode is on the left hand side of the road  when coming in from the roundabout and the AN postcode is on the left hand side so it will depend on which side of the road you parked. But if they have the wrong postcode they lose as PoFA  requires that the area is specified.

The earlier thread involving a cagger parking in a similar place to your friend only lasted about four posts so we don't know the outcome. But we did learn that Eezehaul were the employers of Premier.

The signage from Premier didn't apply with PoFA requirements which I saw in google maps dated 2020. For a start when you come off the roundabout into the Eezehaul road there should be a big sign advising motorists that they are entering a private road with parking restrictions. It didn't then though Premier may have altered it since. 

The first No Parking sign is on the corner of the the road that turns into the Toyota giving the impression that it applies to the Toyota section rather than the Eezehaul. Plus it is not big enough to attract attention. their is a further sign that faces at right angles to the road so would be easily missed. there is a third sign past the Europarks store on a wall across the road. 

It would be worth getting legible photos of the signage there now since you may remember why you didn't see them on the day of the visit. Strong sunlight, high sided vehicle hiding a sign, busy road making it difficult to look sideways where the sign was, etc etc. The name of the road is  The Drive which is presumably where you parked.

In any case the signage all say No Parking which is prohibitive and therefore cannot offer a contract.

 

[dx100uk]

On 09/07/2021 at 00:15, Boxer1968 said:

heres my paperwork hope this is correct ?

premier.pdf 1.89 MB · 30 downloads

 

On 11/07/2021 at 11:48, dx100uk said:

if you look on google nosey neighbours you can see the CCTV cameras on the tall warehouse wall , the images there are 2021 too, but you can't see the disturbed  curb stone as i think the RAC van is in the way. it's a private road too.

added a pix in PDF of where you exactly parked as an addition to the above info

where you parked .pdf

[lookinforinfo]

The photos do not pinpoint which side of the road you parked. If you parked on the same side as the Euro parts office then you weren't parked in RH10 9PL.

[dx100uk]

the op parked far side by the white door , obv because the bush, the square  drain cover and the brick pavement are at the other kerb and the round drain cover and repaired tarmac can be seen in the pcn photos by the white door.

dx 

[boxer1978]

Was away for a few days.. thanks for the feedback on the WS.

Have sent across to the relevant parties. 

[FTMDave]

I understand your reasons for filing early.

The only problem is that this gives Premier a chance to see yours first and potentially the opportunity to make up lies to counter your arguments.

Will you able to get your hands on their WS when it arrives?

[boxer1978]

thanks a lot guys for your help with the whole claim.

The hearing is in a couple of days and I have just come back to the country. 

I have had the claimants WS that states that they wont be attending but would like the hearing to go ahead anyway based on their arguments in the statement. 

Not sure what to make of this. I am planning to go to the court as planned and defend. 

As I would like the experts to give me any more arguments for the day if possible,

Please let me know if it is okay to post their WS in here? 

Anything I should redact beyond my personal details etc. 

[FTMDave]

Yes, it is essential we get to see their WS.

Plus please post up exactly what they have written about not attending it is extremely important because there are two ways of not attending.

One is to just not show up at all and ask the judge to decide on their written WS.  In that case you would win.

The other is not to show up but send a solicitor on their behalf.  A totally different story.