Free Traffic Legal Advice

Here is a suggested versi9n for your WS which includes the information about the difference in name:

In the County Court at Nottingham

Claim Number: [xxxxxx]

Vehicle Control Services Limited
Claimant

- and -

[Maiden Name]
Defendant

---

Witness Statement of [Married Name]

1. I, [Married Name], formerly known as [Maiden Name], of [your address], make this statement as the defendant in response to the claim brought by Vehicle Control Services Ltd (VCS).

Background

2. On 27/06/2023, I received a letter from Volkswagen Financial Services (VWFS), notifying me that they had received a Charge Notice (CN) and a Notice to Keeper (NTK) from Vehicle Control Services Ltd (VCS) regarding an alleged breach of contract by a vehicle with registration number [xxxx xxx] at 13:54 on 26/06/2023 at East Midlands Airport (EMA). I refer to the letter from VWFS, marked AW01. The letter further stated that VWFS had transferred liability for the alleged breach of contract to me as the Hirer of the vehicle in question.

Non-compliance with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA)

3. The claimant, VCS, did not comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA), particularly regarding the issuing of a Notice to Hirer (NtH). Specifically, they have failed to provide the necessary documents as required by paragraphs 13 and 14 of Schedule 4. However, even if the necessary documents had been provided, POFA does not apply in this case because East Midlands Airport (EMA) is land subject to statutory control and governed by bye-laws. Therefore, under the law, VCS cannot hold me liable as the Hirer of the vehicle for the Charge Notice.

4. Furthermore, I wish to clarify that I was neither the driver nor the registered keeper of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged breach. The burden of proof rests on the claimant to establish who was driving the vehicle, and the claimant has failed to provide any evidence to support their mendacious assertion that I was either the driver or the keeper.

I Was Not the Driver on the Date of the Alleged Breach

5. On the date and time of the alleged breach of contract (26/06/2023, 13:54), I was returning to EMA from Naples Airport, Italy. My flight was scheduled to land at 12:55 pm, but it was delayed. At 13:54, I was still going through passport control at EMA, and I can confirm that I was not driving the vehicle in question. I refer to my flight confirmation, marked AW03.

Deficiencies in the Claimant’s Particulars of Claim (PoC)

6. The Claimant's PoC states that I breached terms and conditions on “private land,” but as previously noted, EMA is land subject to statutory control and does not qualify as “private land” for the purposes of POFA.

7. I also draw the Court’s attention to the fact that the PoC is in breach of Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) 16.4, 16PD3, and 16PD7, as it fails to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action." A copy of the PoC is attached and marked AW04.

8. The PoC further state that the defendant is being pursued for a “breach of contract” and that “the sign” was the “offer,” while “driving onto the land” was the “acceptance.” However, the PoC fail to mention the third essential element to form a contract, the “consideration.” As the signs are prohibitive in nature, there can be no consideration, and therefore no contract could have been formed.

9. Additionally, the PoC claim that "at all material times, the defendant was the registered keeper and/or driver." This statement is factually incorrect, and I invite the Court to note that it has been signed with a Statement of Truth, despite the lack of accuracy.

No Contract Formed & Breach of the Consumer Rights Act (CRA)

10. Even if the Court were to consider the possibility of a contract being formed, such a contract would be unfair and unenforceable under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA). The CRA prohibits unfair terms in consumer contracts, and any term that attempts to impose liability on the Hirer when the land is subject to statutory control would be considered an unfair term.

11. Further, the terms outlined on the signage at EMA are prohibitive in nature, forbidding certain actions rather than offering anything in exchange. For a valid contract to exist, there must be an exchange of consideration, which is absent here. The signage merely imposes restrictions rather than offering parking services in return for payment. As such, no contract could have been validly formed between the Claimant and myself.

Conclusion

12. In conclusion, the Claimant's claim is unfounded for the reasons outlined above. They have failed to comply with POFA, there is no evidence to support the claim that I was the driver, no contract was formed, and their PoC are deficient. I respectfully request the Court to dismiss the claim in its entirety.

13. In the matter of costs, I ask:

(a) standard witness costs for attendance at Court, pursuant to CPR 27.14, and

(b) for a finding of unreasonable conduct by this Claimant, seeking costs pursuant to CPR 46.5.

14. Attention is drawn specifically to the (often-seen from this industry) possibility of an unreasonably late Notice of Discontinuance. Whilst CPR r.38.6 states that the Claimant is liable for the Defendant's costs after discontinuance (r.38.6(1)), this does not normally apply to claims allocated to the small claims track (r.38.6(3)). However, the White Book states (annotation 38.6.1): "Note that the normal rule as to costs does not apply if a claimant in a case allocated to the small claims track serves a notice of discontinuance although it might be contended that costs should be awarded if a party has behaved unreasonably (r.27.14(2)(dg))."

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.

Signed: [Your Married Name]


Date: [Insert Date]

Do not rush to submit your WS. You should, if at all possible leave it to the last minute or not before the claimant submits theirs which you can then rebut in your own WS.

The above is a started for now.

I got a ticket from Redbridge Council for flipping 6 seconds in some junction box.
I was in the box maybe 10 secs total (other 4 seconds, I was moving slowly).

I've appealed saying there was a car ahead that *suddenly* held up traffic.
I positioned myself to over take the mini backlog (safely and legally) - hence why I was stationary for just 6 seconds.
I could actually have positioned the car so that I was out of the box (at least my tyres out), but I deemed that to be dangerous so I didn't do this.
I only entered the box because there was free flowing traffic.

The above is what I have said - or something very close (I have written and saved on my PC exactly what I said).

The idiots will no doubt reject my appeal and not bother reading.

I thought I would pass it by you guys to see what advice you would give.

EDIT I could easily have been crawling through the yellow box - never stationary, always moving and in doing so been in the yellow box for a much greater time than 6 seconds! Just a thought. + The yellow box was actually quite small - I would say 4m x 4m - so giving motorist little time to know it's there (in comparison to a big yellow box). I thought I would add these points incase relevant.

Thanks.

What do you think could be an issue with PCN? 

I think we've had a go at these Brick Lane PCNs - at this location you can't turn left as it's no entry and looking ahead you do see directional arrows pointing forward.

So you have to turn right but it's not obvious and it applies only on certian times at Sat/Sun.

I haven't checked the PCN.

No harm in making an informal challenge. It's a trap and I think an adjudicator may well agree. 

OP, the standard position is whatever is conveyed by the sign.

If a council chooses to relax their enforcement or if there is a legal exception in the designating order then that's their choice. You cannot superimpose one council's order exemptions or enforcement protocols on another.

You've posted the Haringey website which states clearly:

Parking bays

Electric vehicles (not hybrids or plug-in hybrids) can park for free only in dedicated pay-by-phone bays in Haringey, but the maximum stay and no return rules still apply.

Electric vehicles cannot park for free in shared-use bays (these are pay-by-phone bays that permit holders can park in).

As regards shared use, IMO the level of penalty is correct. The bay has complementary but not overlapping restrictions and you parked when only the payment requirement was in force.

This is not a shared use bay as we know it, Jim. I would have thought the separate P&D time stands alone and the OP is entitled to park his EV there for free during this time.