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

Coupon-mad

OP - what's your response to #28?

Xanthanan

Thank you for you comments, I must be understanding things because I did write a similar list of answers to each point. None the less yours are better Lamilad and they cover some things better, differently or that I hadn't!

Coupon-mad wrote: »

OP - what's your response to #28?

The response I had already written for 28 is:

"I wasn’t the driver, I’ve explained it was fully arranged with ERAC by the other potential drivers."

Is that sufficient?

To expand further my WS explains the events of that morning where I was called back to work and left as other people were arranging cover...

"4. After hasty phone calls arranging help I left three people in the hire company premises waiting to arrange for additional driver(s) for the vehicle as I returned home in my own car. I believe that was completed successfully but did not enquire later when I re-joined the group, I did not inspect any of the contract documents I saw in the vehicle"

Lamilad

Xanthanan wrote: »

Thank you for you comments, I must be understanding things because I did write a similar list of answers to each point. None the less yours are better Lamilad and they cover some things better, differently or that I hadn't!


The response I had already written for 28 is:

"I wasn’t the driver, I’ve explained it was fully arranged with ERAC by the other potential drivers."

Is that sufficient?

To expand further my WS explains the events of that morning where I was called back to work and left as other people were arranging cover...

"4. After hasty phone calls arranging help I left three people in the hire company premises waiting to arrange for additional driver(s) for the vehicle as I returned home in my own car. I believe that was completed successfully but did not enquire later when I re-joined the group, I did not inspect any of the contract documents I saw in the vehicle"

I think this is a significant point in both the defence and claimants case. And I think it's likely the judge will home in on it. How you present your response therefore is crucial.

We could do with seeing the evidence they refer to at 22-25. They say it shows that there were no 'alternative drivers' and you were the only person authorised to drive the vehicle. If this is true it will work against you. As they can't rely on pofa they will try to build a persuasive case to make the judge believe that you were 'probably' the driver, which would be enough for them to win the case.

This evidence could swing things heavily in their favour. Problem you have is you're saying one thing and they're saying another, but they have evidence to support what they're saying.... So unless you can produce something that proves or at least strongly suggests that you weren't the driver - such as a work document or statement from your boss, then I'd say you're up against it.

Coupon-mad

And I think it's likely the judge will home in on it.

Yes, I'm no Judge but it worried me, that's why I homed in on it.

Can you possibly prove this either by getting evidence from those other drivers or emailing the Hire company and asking them to please confirm - without any names/data of course - that the vehicle reg xxxxxxxx was authorised to be driven by other drivers apart from yourself.

You need to blow that point to smithereens with some evidence as it is a time bomb IMHO. You need to prove if you can that you were not the only allowed driver and you will be a long way forward to a win.

Xanthanan

The original contract clearly said no other drivers, that's the default with ERAC. The subsequent contract arranged for additional drivers after the hire started hasn't been included though, only my original hire document. I cant get a copy of that second contract (because its not in my name) but I guess it would clearly name the driver anyway.

I had the call from work after the hire had started, let the other people know I had to shoot off and two of my stepdaughters uncles came over to the Enterprise offices and arranged for extra driver(s) on a second contract after I had left.

I have dropped my WS in the same dropbox folder (Witness statement FINAL) and Paras 2 - 5 explain what happened. Those paragraphs were originally much more detailed but got trimmed when it was all deemed too long but still hold the majority of what happened, just slightly trimmed.

Xanthanan

Lamilad wrote: »

such as a work document or statement from your boss, then I'd say you're up against it.

Hadn't thought of that, I'll ask him to draft something on Tuesday. My work chat history got purged after 2 years or I would have still had a couple of IM's from the time dealing with the fault, They were still on the server when I did the defence back in Sept '16 but were gone from it when I started looking for them this year I thought I had saved a copy of one somewhere but not been able to find it... I'll have another look around the work and home PC's.


Forgot to mention, a letter arrived from BW Legal today saying the claimant will be 'represented by an advocate' during the hearing.

Lamilad

I cant get a copy of that second contract (because its not in my name) but I guess it would clearly name the driver anyway.

You might get away with redacting it saying that the driver has refused to allow his details to become known to the claimant.

Or couldn't you just ask Enterprise to write you a letter (on letterheaded paper) saying a second contract was taken out which meant someone else could drive the car.

You need to do something.

Xanthanan

OK it's been a busy weekend but I also managed to tip my home office upside down and search the hard drives and server connections of 2 PC's all for no reason. I have also got a supplementary SA done covering all of the BW Legal Witness Statement paragraphs in more detail. I have added a small number of additional items as evidence, the most important being the one below. Just need to redact it and will then post a copy for comment.

Xanthanan wrote: »

My work chat history got purged after 2 years or I would have still had a couple of IM's from the time dealing with the fault, They were still on the server when I did the defence back in Sept '16 but were gone from it when I started looking for them this year I thought I had saved a copy of one somewhere but not been able to find it... .

After a lot of searching in the wrong places I finally found a rather tatty copy of the IM conversation I was thinking of, I printed it back in September at a meeting with the other guy in the conversation so that I could show it him and get his agreement for me to use it. It then got hit by a spillage during the meeting so after drying it just got stuffed in a bag and forgotten about. It shows me at home working while the 'contravention' was happening.

Xanthanan

OK I have now added 'SA Supplementary REDACTED' to the folder link below:

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

Xanthanan

Any opinions on the doc above?

I have been going through my WS in comparison to what I can remember (after 2 and a half years) and I appear to have made an incorrect statement in the WS

I thought that the other drivers went into the hire office (to make the necessary arrangements) as they were walking down the road towards it when I drove away, but in my WS I incorrectly say: "I left three people in the hire company premises" (It got changed from 'them approaching' in the various edits I did)

Having seen the suggestion (in the claimants WS) that alternate drivers were not arranged I wonder if the three just jumped in the van instead of paying for alternate drivers. It would make sense and all of the three people are unwilling to say much as it may identify who drove.

Trouble is I need to come clean that my WS may contain that small error, how do I do that as well as submitting the supplementary SA above?