UKPC 2x windscreen PNC's claimform - - forgot permit - appealed - res parking my own space - East Croft House, 86 Northolt Road, South Harrow, HA2 0ES - *** Claim Dismissed ***

[lookinforinfo]

Could you please post up the Notice to driver and the Notice to keeper for both alleged breaches and please ensure that the dates on all four are legible. If all four were not included please confirm .

[FTMDave]

LFI, both of the NTDs and both of the NTKs are in UKPC's WS.

The former are legible, the latter no.

I see the OP has disappeared - again - for 24 hours despite the imminent deadline for the WS.

It's pretty ridiculous Caggers posting during their work breaks to try to help given the strict deadline when the person in legal dispute is not even here.

[dbuk2000]

I have taken the No Locus Standi from LFI's previous post. Its very direct and really calls out the claimant, I presume this is fine?

I can't see any mention of Eastcroft House on the PCN's provided in their WS. Latest version of the WS attached.

Thank you for all the help so far.

It may look like I don't care with the long gaps in responding but nothing is further from the truth.

I will do what is needed throughout tomorrow to tidy it up. 

My plan is to shoot off emails to the claimant and Willesden County Court on Monday(14 days before the court date).

DBUK2000 WS Redacted 06042024.compressed.pdf

[honeybee13]

We don't recommend emailing PPCs. They can use it to send documents at the 11th hour when it's too late for you to consider them, we've seen it. Use snail mail for them, email is fine for the court.

HB

[lookinforinfo]

Yes it is direct  dbuk and for a reason. I want the Judge to know what a bunch UKPC are and I have a go at them hoping they will not have the guts to go to Court. Or the Judge will see that they are not to be trusted.

I take it that there are no ANPR cameras on site so it will only be the warden who takes the photos of any alleged breaches. You should put UKPC to strict proof that you were parked there as their photos show they were only there for a few minutes. Put them to strict proof that you didn't leave within five minutes .

Question to the Site team.

Do private residential sites have the benefit of a "Consideration period" like Council tickets in residential car parks. 

The NTD you included in their WS fails because it does not include a parking period. So does the PCN fail to mention the parking period . While the photos may show that your car was there for several minutes, the parking period has to be specified on the PCN, not on the photos.

I like your new WS but would just pick you up on two items.

On Point 18 you have used "accredited BPA trying to give the impression".....twice. On Point 28 you missed out the word "no" in front of location-and I ask once again -are you sure hey didn't include the address. Without it they have  no case.

HB is right not to email your WS to the rogues or their sixth rate solicitors. and you should inform them, and keep a copy of the letter you send[ not to ever use emails with you. 

It bothers me that the dates on the both Notices to Keeper are seemingly obliterated. That would tend to mean that the dates were wrong otherwise why make them illegible.

Are you able to read the dates on which both the  NTKs were sent. The PCNs are already not compliant with PoFA so  nothing gained. However if the dates are wrong then it could be seen that they are trying to thwart the Court which could be classified as an attempt to pervert the course of Justice.  That would be a serious claim which if true [though perhaps unlikely] . So fingers crossed.

[dbuk2000]

They have my email anyway as that's how I received the claimants WS

[honeybee13]

So you need to do what LFI said and tell them not to use email any more. We've seen this cause trouble before.

HB

[FTMDave]

7 hours ago, dbuk2000 said:

It may look like I don't care with the long gaps in responding but nothing is further from the truth.

However, the result of your absences is that a near-perfect WS at the point of post 24 that needed just the tiniest of tweaks has now morphed into an incomprehensible mess with lots of repetition and legal arguments strewn across the wrong sections.

You've added stuff I suggested early on in the discussion and ignored stuff suggested in post 24 which was much better as it included LFI's insights.

Can you please upload a version in Word?  This will have your personal details embedded but we can immediately delete at this end and just keep it for Site Team.  With a version in Word it's just much easier to move the arguments around to the right sections and delete the repetition.

 

[FTMDave]

Thanks!

Onto it.

I've hidden your post from spying eyes so no-one can see your personal details on the Word version.

Edited April 6 by FTMDave
Extra info added

[dx100uk]

dbuk.. stop hitting quote all the time and stop putting docx files up please.

it makes a thread so difficult to follow on small screened devices.

 

[FTMDave]

See if you're happy with this version.

I've tried to cut out repetition, put the legal arguments in the right sections, and also cut out some stuff critical of UKPC but really of little bearing on whether you owe the money or not.

I'd love to know how you get the paras to automatically number themselves - it would have saved me a load of work on other WSs in the past!!!

Some final points.

Paras 12 and 14 are in contradiction.  in (12) you say the signs say "Permit Holders Only" while in (14) "The signs make no mention of the need to display permits".  So which is it?  We can't make out the signs apart from one which is not on your property but rather just a blow-up of a standard sign.  Please address this issue.

In (31) you need a new exhibit F which is attached here.

If you can clear up the matter of the signs then we will be good to go.

G4QZ465V Excel v Wilkinson.pdf Witness Statement 06042024a.pdf

Edited April 6 by FTMDave
Typo

[FTMDave]

dx, the Word document was my fault, I requested it.

The OP's PDFs are scanned document and that makes it impossible to copy, paste or delete sentences or paragraphs.

[dbuk2000]

Hi Dave

 

Thank you so much for this. I am going to head to the block of flats in a couple of hours and check all the signage to myself to have clarity on if a permit is needed or not. Will report back after this. 

Regarding the paragraphing you can try the below steps

1. Go to File > Options > Proofing.
2. Select AutoCorrect Options, and then select the AutoFormat As You Type tab.
3. Select Automatic bulleted lists or Automatic numbered lists.
4. Select OK.

[dbuk2000]

So I had a look at the signs today and they clearly state that a valid permit is needed. Hence I am going to remove point 14 from the WS.

Also on the signage their is a £100 sticker put over the previous sign that stated £90. You can see on the attached from the pic I took. This of course is what the PCN is based on but not what they have put in their WS.

UKPC Eastcroft Sign.pdf

[FTMDave]

See what you think of this version.

I've tidied up the Prohibition section.

I've added a new (11).

Remember to add the Exhibit F which is mentioned in (32).

Above (23) and above (24) I've knackered the layout somewhat.  Sorry.  You'll have noticed this is not my forté.

Hilarious that they have included the £90 sign instead of the £100 one.  Hoisted by ...

Witness Statement 06042024b.pdf

[dbuk2000]

Amazing work. Just a couple of questions?

For Exhibit F do I need to include every page for the Excel vs Wilkinson claim. Similarly should I also include every page from my lease as Exhibit A rather than just extracts that I have currently put. 

[FTMDave]

For Excel v Wilkinson - the whole thing.

For your lease - just the extracts.

[FTMDave]

I was going to disagree with the other regulars and say to use e-mail tomorrow/Monday given the deadline.  After all, UKPC have your e-mail address and it's a bit late to tell them to stop using it.

However, I'm musing about the £90/£100 sign.  We've seen in other cases where the PPC has messed up with their lie mistake with signs, and when they cotton on when reading the Cagger's WS they try to rush a Supplemental Witness Statement to the court.

So the less time they have the better.

So up to you, but it might be an idea to e-mail the court tomorrow/Monday with their copy.  Make sure that in the subject line there is written - the claim number, the names of the parties, the hearing date, and the words "Witness Statement".  Obviously click on "Return Receipt".

Then on Monday send UKPC theirs by 2nd class post (all they are worth) and get a free Certificate of Posting from the post office.

[dbuk2000]

I don't mind that approach. The only question I have is that UKPC would only get their version 11/12 days before if I send via second class post and could that not get used against me by the judge where UKPC's solicitors state that I didn't follow the timelines to send them the WS?

[FTMDave]

I don't think it makes a massive amount of difference either way.

The important thing is to prepare a strong WS - and you have done.

If you use e-mail there is a chance they will try to sneak in extra evidence at the last minute.

If you use Royal Mail there is a slight chance that the delay will be used against you, but it's unlikely as a Litigant-in-Person is allowed leeway.

Your call.

I won't be around for the rest of the day as I'm now off to the excitement of an Italian third division football relegation clash!

[lookinforinfo]

I cannot read whether the sign shown on their WS says £90 or £100 and if it does state £100 is it done with by adding a sticker as your version has or not. In any event the contract states £90 so where is the agreement to increase the charge or has it been done without the landowners permission. without that permission the charge should only have been £90 and that in itself should be enough to throw out the case.

[dbuk2000]

Thanks everyone for all their help. I am going to send the WS over tomorrow. Will let you know if/when I hear anything back.

I presume for the court I just send it to their general email [email protected] and then for the counterparty I am sending it just the solicitors and not to the claimant themselves?

[FTMDave]

UKPC are too stupid to lose their own cases so they employ sixth-rate solicitors to lose their cases on their behalf.  So yes, send theirs to whichever solicitors are named on the claim form.

I would presume that is the right court address, but after sending it it might be an idea to ring them just to be sure.

[lookinforinfo]

I am sorry to disagree with you Dave but UKPC are  stupid enough to lose their own cases.

[dbuk2000]

Hi All

 

I received the attached from the claimants solicitors today. I presume best course of action is to ignore?

 

Thanks

Claimant Response to WS.pdf