Court claim issued - No Marked Bays, Confusing Signage

Coupon-mad

You need to read post #2 of the NEWBIES thread. Skeleton arguments shown there.

Vielwerth

Coupon-mad wrote: »

You need to read post #2 of the NEWBIES thread. Skeleton arguments shown there.

I have, but I can't see any strictly legal arguments that relate to my case. Would consensus ad idem be enough to get the judge onside?

Coupon-mad

Have a look at this one from today, and LoadsofChildren123's suggestions about how to structure it:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5696361

You shouldn't be looking for new legal arguments now - your skeleton merely sets out your defence and legal arguments already made in it.

Remind us what your defence said, exactly?

Vielwerth

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Remind us what your defence said, exactly?

I'll do a write up tonight. Just got my hands on link's witness statement and there are a couple of odd points. Making an annotated version of it now, and will upload in an hour or so.

I've boobed though. Their evidence of the signage is non existent. They've provided a copy of the sign with no location number or establishing shot. (An error I think Link have made before.) However MY exhibits have plenty of shots (and establishment shots) proving that those signs were on site. Can they use my evidence to make up for their mistake?

nosferatu1001

Wel they can of course use your evidence, however you should ask why they havent proven their case first

Does their make statements that cannot possibly be known, e..g the identity of the driver, or make mistakes or inconsistencies? Usually the "witness" is no such thing, so if you can discredit their WS you cna get it thrown out - meaning they have no evidence to prove their case.

Vielwerth

I've added an annotated copy of Link's WS to my Google Drive. You can access it here :


https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0BwXipWyUznKcOFJVZUJLUnJHYTQ


Please let me know what you think. Marty McFly claims there is only ONE sign on the entire site and doesn't say anything about the lack of bays or the pay and display conundrum.


Also their site plan is a joke, a scan of Google Maps with some mysterious "X"s on it.

Vielwerth

Did a bit of digging and the landowner (a person) isn't the same entity as the company Link's contract was signed with.


This person is however the senior exec of that company. Can authority over land be transferred to a company one is in charge of?

Coupon-mad

This person is however the senior exec of that company.

You know that...but do they? Don't hand them more evidence/hints!

Hopefully some of us will find a moment to look at your annotated version of their WS, shortly.

[Deleted User]

Lots to go on here. I will resist comment on his {ahem} intriguingly eclectic line of current and former business interests.

So to the statement: no he doesn't need to attach the contract. That's not the point Martin, you disingenuous fella, it's your duty to set out the material terms of the contract and how it was formed and your particulars do not.

We love Buckingham Palace, I'm so glad Martin does too. But since Link's right to sue on the unpaid charge appears to derive wholly from the terms of the contract not on interpretation of legal concepts, it better be enforceable or their house of cards will come tumbling down.

Technical points

1. Horizon Properties (student letting agent) appears to be unincorporated. If that is the case, the contract MUST be in the name of the sole trader, trading as Horizon. There should also be a business address for them.

It's ridiculously uncertain. Is that Horizon Properties, Horizon Estate Agents, Horizon Properties Ltd (all are different). And if you don't specify, who are the controlling minds of that business at the material time and who signed it?

The o/p homework on the landowner appears to suggest that the property owner and business owner may be one and the same. If that is correct, and without misleading the court (it is paramount not to do that), where possible I would not introduce as evidence any material as to who the owner is. Uncertainty is your friend.

2. The address appears to be a property address not that of the letting agent (who are based on Senghennedd Rd. It's been a long time since I was in Cardiff, but effectively the contract names the parking site in Cathays only AFAIK.

The execution clauses on that document are terrible with no alignment. However in the context of a small company, unless Martin as sole director signed it, there is an argument it may not have been validly executed anyway.

Finally, whilst this is all good stuff, the court could elect just to assume there is a valid contract because there were signs up. The powers of the court are wide and varied.

Vielwerth

Call me naive, but how can Horizon be a sole trader if they have employees and a nice office and stuff?

If it gets to a hearing, is Link's contract enough to prove that Horizon *are* the landowner? Surely all it proves is that there is a contract between Link and Horizon, and it would be on the claimant to prove that they contracted with the actual landowner, no?

I'm a little concerned that Marty has made no mention of:

1. The lack of marked bays, when the signage insist you park in them.
2. The lack of pay and display provision when the siganage implies it's existence.

These two points form the crux of my argument that there was no contract. They should have covered up the signage so that just permits were required. They should taken care to remove or cover up the signage offering no charge if I paid and displayed. >:(

What could this mean?