Parking Awareness Service (PAS) PCN

johjames

Coupon-mad said:

 vague/hidden vague/hidden terms 

So good, you said it twice!

It about sums up PAS approach, I've read so much of their terrible grammar, that it's catching. Thank you, I've amended accordingly.

johjames

1505grandad said:

"14. The Claimant also failed to meet the conditions demanded by PoFA which states that the notice to keeper must specify the relevant land on which the vehicle was parked, in accordance with Paragraph 8: "

Just checking  -  should this be "9"?  (8 refers to NtD)

You're absolutely correct 1505grandad, thank you. I've changed it to 9.

johjames

I forgot to include this last paragraph for review, which is not from the Defence Template. Thank you all again for your help.

38.   The Defendant invites the court to find that this exaggerated claim is entirely without merit and  to dismiss the claim. The Defendant is a senior doctor. Having to deal with the Claimant’s meritless and vexatious claim has caused him considerable stress and loss of time. Having to attend Court, given that the claim, for the reasons described above, stands no reasonable prospect of success and is entirely without merit, would cause the Defendant to needlessly be unable to assess the elderly and vulnerable cohort of patients whom he is assigned to.

Coupon-mad

I'd put that far higher, so the Judge reads it as paragraph 3 or 4 and move others down.  It might also make the PPC discontinue at some point.

johjames

Coupon-mad said:

I'd put that far higher, so the Judge reads it as paragraph 3 or 4 and move others down.  It might also make the PPC discontinue at some point.

Thanks very much Coupon-Mad, that's good advice. I wouldn't mind attending Court if there was any case to answer, because I'm a believer in fairness and justice, but the legislation and case law all unequivocally suggest that this claim has no reasonable chance of success. I'm going to amend my costs to claim for the work which I've been unable to do and which I can evidence, because I've had to spend a significant amount of time dealing with this, as per Spencer and anor v Paul Jones Financial Services Ltd. I'll post the amended paragraph for criticism here and then on to the witness statement.

Le_Kirk

johjames said:

 I'll post the amended paragraph for criticism here and then on to the witness statement.

It is not criticism but critique - a subtle difference!

johjames

Le_Kirk said:

johjames said:

 I'll post the amended paragraph for criticism here and then on to the witness statement.

It is not criticism but critique - a subtle difference!

True, true!

Redx

johjames said:

Coupon-mad said:

I'd put that far higher, so the Judge reads it as paragraph 3 or 4 and move others down.  It might also make the PPC discontinue at some point.

Thanks very much Coupon-Mad, that's good advice. I wouldn't mind attending Court if there was any case to answer, because I'm a believer in fairness and justice, but the legislation and case law all unequivocally suggest that this claim has no reasonable chance of success. I'm going to amend my costs to claim for the work which I've been unable to do and which I can evidence, because I've had to spend a significant amount of time dealing with this, as per Spencer and anor v Paul Jones Financial Services Ltd. I'll post the amended paragraph for criticism here and then on to the witness statement.

Your summary costs assessment is submitted with the WS plus Exhibits in several months time

johjames

I was thinking of adding this final paragraph to my Defence, before having another proof read. I'd be grateful for your thoughts please all. Thank you.:

The Claimant’s behaviour in relation to this claim, when considering the guidance offered by Sir Thomas Bingham MR’s comments in Ridehalgh v Horsefield [1994] Ch 205, 232F, is clearly unreasonable. Sir Thomas Bingham stated that ‘The acid test [for unreasonable behaviour] is whether the conduct permits of a reasonable explanation. If so, the course adopted may be regarded as optimistic and as reflecting in a Practioner’s judgement, but it is not unreasonable.’ Longmore and McFarlane LJJ in the Court of Appeal in Dammermann v Lanyon Bowdler LLP [2017] EWCA Civ 269, state that in relation to Sir Thomas Bingham’s statement, above, that ‘We think that the above dictum should give sufficient guidance on the word “unreasonably” to district judges and circuit judges dealing with cases allocated to the small claims track. ’In this case, the Claimant’s behaviour has been evidenced to be vexatious and has also been shown to have harassed the Defendant, rather than advance the resolution of the case. The Claimant’s claim does not stand any chance of success, because of their disregard for the law and abundant case law, which showed that they had no case against the Defendant as the keeper. The Claimant, given their role and their recurrent litigation in such cases, should reasonably have been expected to know the law and case law, as should their legal representatives. The Claimant deliberately misleading the Defendant, which has been evidenced in writing by the DVLA, whom they have also brought into disrepute further evidences their unreasoanbleness. CPR 27.14(2)(g) allows the court to use its discretion to summarily assess further costs and order the same to be paid by a party who has behaved unreasonably and I would therefore ask the Court to award the Defendant costs under CPR 27.14(2)(g).

Coupon-mad

Looks very robust!  Can't argue with trying that.