Excel Parking, BW Legal and now what looks like court papers

henrik777

Xanthanan wrote: »

Ohhh I think I may have dropped off...

Just read somewhere that 14 days before the hearing isn't 2 weeks. Its 14 working days meaning my bundle has to arrive by THIS Thursday ... not in a week or so's time like I thought.

Can anyone quickly confirm this? I can print out and hand deliver the bundle plus email the BW legal copy ... but darn from being relatively up to speed its a close run thing all of a sudden

You can read all sorts of crap on the internet. You can also read the official rules

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part02#2.9

Dates for compliance to be calendar dates and to include time of day
2.9
(1) Where the court gives a judgment, order or direction which imposes a time limit for doing any act, the last date for compliance must, wherever practicable –

(a) be expressed as a calendar date; and

(b) include the time of day by which the act must be done.

(2) Where the date by which an act must be done is inserted in any document, the date must, wherever practicable, be expressed as a calendar date.

Xanthanan

Sooo having printed and hand numbered the whole bundle in a mad flap, I am not to panic? Oooohhh lol... sorry, kind of a relief that is... Its rather late and I'm a little stir crazy now, so for complete understanding and avoidance of panic moments or any ambiguity (and so I may sleep tonight):

The date of my hearing is Wed 10th May, so the bundles can arrive by Wed 26th Apr, thus be posted on Mon 24th to follow the 2 day postage rule ... is that right?

Lamilad

The date of my hearing is Wed 10th May, so the bundles can arrive by Wed 26th Apr, thus be posted on Mon 24th to follow the 2 day postage rule ... is that right?

That's fine. Though if one was being pedantic they would say that in order to comply fully with CPR 2.8...

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part02#2.8

... And specifically the "clear days" mentioned within - your docs would have to be served on Mon 24th.

LoC explains in more detail here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5573407

Fact is - 14 "actual" days will be fine (in your case Wed 26th). The court won't care.

Xanthanan

So its all ready for copying tomorrow, I have one final worry, the plan has always been to primarily defend on no driver and POF failure and should that prove to be fruitless fall back to CoP failures, lack of provision for loading and the unconsented signage.

Between those primary and secondary arguements I have the following short paragraph in the SA... should I keep it or is it better to not have that in?

Should the court believe I am still liable, I would ask that I am allowed continue to defend this case as if it were presumed I had been the driver (which I wasn’t).

Coupon-mad

I would not have that line in. You are entitled to defend anyway, even of some defence points are shot down, you simply move onto the next one and don't have to have permission.

Xanthanan

Thank you, I will remove it

Lamilad

Agree with CM. If that situation were to arise you can deal with it orally on the day.

"Sir/ Ma'am, as well as my assertion that I was not the driver and the fact there is no keeper liability there are other significant reasons why this claim is completely without merit and I would like to discuss those now.............."

Xanthanan

So the BW legal WS and evidence pack arrived by email today, 12 pages of WS and 28 pages of exhibit. Need to extract the WS and redact some of it but will share out asap. No real surprises in there but would appreciate input from everyone once I've shared it out:)

Xanthanan

BW Legal WS in the link below. Would appreciate feedback where possible. I've already started writing notes but am working 'til late tonight

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/nx3f44e0pzvvap1/AACcg8Y72g_3PSoLN6-v18Y8a?dl=0

Lamilad

Chloe Smith's witness statements don't half look like like the ones written by Leigh Schelvis and Rohan Krishanaro - almost identical word for word and just as hopelessly deficient.

So after a quick scan I would attack the following points in your SA:

Para:
#1. CS says "I have conduct of this action" So if she doesn't turn on the day (which she won't) and no-one from BWL or Excel turns up instead (which they won't) then it's likely the person who does attend won't have rights of audience. So you raise this as a 'preliminary matter' which the judge and challenge the rep before the hearing.

#8. "defendant was the hirer and/or driver..." This makes no sense and shows the claimant does not even know what they're supposed to be accusing you of. It offers two distinct scenarios: 1. the dfd was the hirer AND the driver - you have denied being the driver under statement of truth and they have offered no proof otherwise... 2. the dfd was either the hirer OR the driver... Well we already know you were the hirer so in this scenario they apprear to concede you were NOT the driver. Aside from that the statement is fatally flawed as both scenarios cannot be true so which is it they are saying is the case?

#8 "defendant failed to purchase a valid PDT" - No, THE DRIVER "allegedly" failed to purchase a PDT. They cannot say it was the dfd coz they can't prove it and they haven't even offered any proof that a PDT was not purchased such as a list of VRNs entered on and around the material time.

#9. The 'overhead plan' they refer to is not time/date stamped therefore there is nothing to prove it applies the car park at the material time.

#12. You have rebutted this in your WS

#13. Once again they've said 'defendant' instead of 'driver'. Any acceptance pf T&Cs was by the driver. They know this. They are being deliberately misleading and manipulative.

#14. The PDT machines and ANPR system are NOT linked. this was established in Excel vs Mrs S, Stockport 2016. Claimant is held to strict proof otherwise.

#15. This is nonsense. Again the say 'defendant' when they know they should say 'driver'. And how exactly did the ANPR cameras 'capture' the drivers 'contravention' ? They didn't and as they're not link to PDT the ANPR photos cannot establish that a valid ticket wasn't purchased.

#17. Again saying defendant instead of 'driver' - they're deliberate attempt to mislead the court is outrageous.

#21. "the claimant believes"... but cannot PROVE! belief is meaningless in court without either proof or persuasive reasoning

#25. Meaningless irrelevant text that has no basis is law. It is not PoFA compliant and there is no obligation to name the driver

#26. Why would you respond to something that refers to an event that has nothing to do with you?

#29. Outrageous statement! How dare they suggest that they're pathetic specualtive invoice puts the same obligation on you as a 'road traffic charge'

#30. Again attempting to mislead the court... In any claims case the burden of proof lies with the claimant. Incredible that they suggest it's a reverse burden of proof.

#31. This is brilliant! Here they say they believe the RK was the driver. Well, that's the hire company not you. So clearly they've taken action against the wrong person. Should have fun with this in court

#32 AJH films - irrelevant 'agency' case oly applies to employer and employee

#33. They've done it again - saying they believe the RK (the hire co) is liable. So what has this got to do with you. They're saying AJH can be applied to 'individual RK's' (which it can't) but you're not the RK so the claimant is suing the wrong person.

#35. Good So they admit that only the unknown driver is liable and liability cannot be transferred

#38. They admit that they did not reasonably engage with you as per pre action protocols and the overriding objective.

#39. Very easy for you to prove they have not complied with the PD

#40. How can they state this? The dfd has formulated a defence "despite" not having a full understanding of the claim... because he had no other choice.

#45. But the £54 was not stated therefore cannot form part of any contract, the existence of which is denied

#46. So what! Their CoP is just something the IPC made up themselves it is not a legal document. You position above is backed up by contract law

#49. They issued you with a "parking" charge notice, not a "entering the car park" notice. they are accusing you of "parking" without purchasing a PDT. So it's entirely relevant that you are saying the vehicle was not parked. And once again they're saying defendant instead of driver.

#50. "DRIVER" not "defendant"... idiots!

#52 - #60. Hopefully you have rebutted all these points in your defence and WS about cop failures and inadequate signage incapable of forming a contract as per the Cutts case.

#61 - #69. The have repeated several paragraphs. Evidence of a copy and paste WS with no due dilligence