Northampton Court Claim arrived (MCOL)

JackBasta

Lamilad wrote: »

Yep, you include all that in your SA. Shows how unreasonably the have acted and attacks their credibility

SA? This is the bit I'm unsure of. I though the process was for us both to supply our witness statements by March 28th, and then the next bit would be the hearing on May 31st.

So Gladstone's and India at MPS have waited until getting my WS, and then taken a month until submitting theirs.

What should the next step be? Just get the arguments I wish to put before the judge in my head?

Or should there me more documents for me to produce, e.g. a response to their WS?

Thanks

Lamilad

SA? This is the bit I'm unsure of. I though the process was for us both to supply our witness statements by March 28th, and then the next bit would be the hearing on May 31st.

So Gladstone's and India at MPS have waited until getting my WS, and then taken a month until submitting theirs.

What should the next step be? Just get the arguments I wish to put before the judge in my head?

Or should there me more documents for me to produce, e.g. a response to their WS?

SA = skeleton argument. You don't have to do one but in this case I think you should as there will be some many things about that bunde you can attack.

It's totally unreasonable for them to send their bundle a month late. It put's you at a serious disadvantage as they have taken loads of time (which the court did not permit them) to study your WS and submit a taylored response attacking it point by point. It they had complied with the court ordered deadline (as you did) they would not have been able to do this.

I think it should certainly be brought to the attention of the court, by letter or email, as they have attempted to gain an unfair advantage by not complying. Maybe see what CM and LoC say first.

Read LoC's thread as she had a humdinger of an SA, I'm sure you'll be able to copy parts of it.

Castle

JackBasta wrote: »

4. Never seen that Parking charge notice from PCS before. Firstly, it it's for an amount bigger than the court claim. Second, it says IPC at the bottom when MPS were BPA at the time. Third, the date that letter was sent bears no relevance to any item in the zatpark status log.

The IPC is a trading name of UNITED TRADE AND INDUSTRY LIMITED which was incorporated on 11th October 2012, some 3 days after the date of the PCS letter. So it's fake

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/08248531

safarmuk

I think a SA is needed here, you can pick this apart piece by piece.

The incoherent monetary values, the contract and in particular this:

The IPC is a trading name of UNITED TRADE AND INDUSTRY LIMITED which was incorporated on 11th October 2012, some 3 days after the date of the PCS letter. So it's fake

... is shocking.
Surely there must be consequences for faking evidence if they can't come up with a reasonable explanation?

JackBasta

Lamilad wrote: »

It's totally unreasonable for them to send their bundle a month late. It put's you at a serious disadvantage as they have taken loads of time (which the court did not permit them) to study your WS and submit a taylored response attacking it point by point. It they had complied with the court ordered deadline (as you did) they would not have been able to do this.

Without knowing anything at all about court procedures, I was amazed to find out that a judge could let this type of thing happen. I left it until last minute to do my WS and was in a mad panic to
get it in by the deadline. I ended up driving to the court to hand it in, and paid 7 quid special delivery to get it up to Gladstone's by the day before the deadline. Wish I hadn't now.

You'd think that even a day late would default to the case being struck.

Loadsofchildren123

Look at the landowner contract t&cs, 3(b) and 4.4. These clauses were in the Copper Quarter contract.
They clearly say that they can only ticket cars that are reported to them as unauthorised by the landowner.
I suspect that this crap clause is in all their contracts. So make a big fuss about it and they may withdraw like they did with me.
Also it's a CONDITION

Loadsofchildren123

woops
It's a CONDITION of the contract that they comply with the AOS CoP. Is this BPA or IPC for you (it was BPA for me as my pcn was pre-18.11.15 when they swapped). You want to make a great meal of all their breaches - here's my breaches document (creds to Lamilad from whom I cribbed it).


https://www.dropbox.com/s/244fnwb9pzr7xoa/BREACHES%20OF%20THE%20BPA%20CODE%20OF%20PRACTICE.docx?dl=0

Loadsofchildren123

Sorry, just read that post saying the contract post-dates the pcn. Make both points. all of this is covered in my SA for which I reposted the link for you on my thread this morning.


There's loads to pick apart here. My Skeleton has it all, you can copy and paste the parts you want. Did you run any of that consumer law argument, or the point that MPS is not MDES? Run it anyway even if it wasn't in your defence.


I saw somewhere, possibly facebook (there's a local fb page for Swansea folk fighting Millennium, it's called something like Copper Quarter and Swansea vs Millennium but it's for all of Swansea - you have to ask to join) that dear old India doubles up as a barmaid for David Bellis (known locally as David !!!!!!!) at his classy bar/club "Fancy a Rum?"). She looks about 20 in her photo. So don't worry about her at all.


I think they usually turn up via an advocate, but perhaps they are trying to keep costs in house now and will send dear India. Please send her my very best.

Loadsofchildren123

Just to explain about the place/purpose of a SA.


In non-small claims, it is a standard direction for each party to file and serve a Skeleton Argument/Case Summary 3-7 days before the final hearing. The purpose of the document is to save court time: it essentially replaces oral submissions on the day. As a document, it brings together your case and your response to the other side's case. It should cross-refer to the page numbers in the trial bundle (which in most orders the Claimant must provide 7 days before the trial).


Small claims don't provide for Skeletons. But that doesn't mean you can't do one. If you do, file and serve it at least 3 days before the hearing. Take spares to court in case. Make sure after you have arrived that the judge has it (speak to the court usher/clerk about this). If he doesn't, hand in your spare copy.


In the unlikely event that the other side object to it, you say it is nothing new, it is simply a summary of your case designed to save time (see below). I've never heard of a judge rejecting a Skeleton - to the contrary, they will likely be pleased you have done one.


It is a useful document for a litigant in person, because you can simply say to the judge "Sir/Madam, everything I want to say in respect of my defence is in my Skeleton/Case Summary. Have you had a chance to read it? Is there anything you would like me to add to the points made in it? Well, that just leaves my response to points raised today by the Claimant's representative, in respect of which I say...."


It therefore hopefully avoids you having to speak for long and minimises the chance you will get flustered or lose focus.


If the DJ says they haven't read it, all you need to do is to take them through it, followed by your response to anything they have said that's new.


So it is both a document designed to help the court and as an aide memoire for you. It's well worth doing one IMO. I did a great big long one, but most people do much shorter versions.

Loadsofchildren123

Gosh, my rude name for David Bellis has been !!!!!'d in post 189. you can probably guess what it is - it involves bells and ends....