Help and guidance please

[Deleted User]

It is a basic principle that one party MUST copy in the court with communications - see this for a detailed exposition:
http://www.civillitigationbrief.com/2017/08/15/copying-the-other-side-into-correspondence-with-the-court-a-recap-and-review-of-the-earlier-case-mentioned/

An order without notice (i.e. without the parties being heard) is almost always made with a provision that there are 7 days to challenge it (to set it aside). The issue here appears to be that the 7 day window appears to have been and gone. Hence the case is done.

If the Claimant is now seeking to appeal or to challenge that, you should absolutely be provided with copies of all of that. Just because BW legal have written to the court does not, of course, mean that the court will engage with it. It may be a case of phone up in a couple of days and see what is on the court file....

Capt_Mainwaring

Hi


I received a Notice Allocation to the Small Claims Track letter a couple of weeks ago. I read through it and put it to one side for a couple of weeks. I've not done anything about it since.



My hearing will take place at Skipton Court in two months time, unless the Claimant fails to pay the trial fee or files a properly completed application. I assume they will comply with one of these formalities.



I am directed to deliver to the other party and to the Court office, copies of all documents on which I will rely on at the hearing. So, I've got five to six weeks to prepare.


I assume this is what is referred to on here as the Witness Statement? I presume I record my version of events and attach the photos that I took of the car park. Do I need to do anything/include anything else?


Thanks

KeithP

Capt_Mainwaring wrote: »

Do I need to do anything/include anything else?

Yes you do, and you won't be surprised to see...

You need to go back and re-read post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread.

From there you will find out exactly what a Witness Statement is and what else you need to do/include.

Coupon-mad

Skipton is great about understanding the POFA - remind us if the driver is known or not?

You can base your WS on Lamilad's ones, in his threads. You can find them by clicking on his username.

Capt_Mainwaring

Thanks Keith. Yes, of course, you are right. I should have re-read the NEWBIES post. I will do so next.


Thanks CM - in this particular claim, the driver is not known. The other claim where the driver's identity had been confirmed has been struck out. I'll look for Lamilad's posts when I'm doing my research. I'll post a draft WS on here shortly.

Coupon-mad

Lamilad's original threads (not his posts, his posts are in the thousands, very prolific!).

Lamilad

Post your draft WS here for review. It won't suffice to simply copy and paste my old WS. Yours will need to be tailored to your circumstances

Capt_Mainwaring

Hi.


I'm working on my WS (which is due to be submitted next week) and in the PoC from Excel, they have submitted a photo of Cavendish Retail Park from 3/2/2016 (nearly 2 and a half years old!). Their photo shows two machines together. near the entrance/exit. I believe there was only machine at that location, at the time the alleged parking contravention took place last year.


An overhead map of the car park shows parking machines in just two locations. If I am correct, then BOTH machines were out of order when the alleged parking contravention took place. Yet they have provided what appears to be a 13 page log recording the times of cars parked there from 06:18 to 20:32?


Does anyone have any photos of the machines near the entrance/exit at this car park? I only have close ups of them, to show that the machine was not working. I've looked online and cannot find what I am looking for.

Coupon-mad

Yet they have provided what appears to be a 13 page log recording the times of cars parked there from 06:18 to 20:32?

I have seen them do this before, and it seems to be either from just one machine, or even from a different site altogether (there is no evidence on the log I saw that it even related to the site they said it did).

Or it could be a faked document from another day, with the date changed. Nothing about those logs looks convincing, the one I saw could have been mocked up from scratch.

This would be something to tear into at the hearing - don't give them the chance to improve flawed evidence!

Capt_Mainwaring

Thanks CM.


I'll be glad when all this is over.