HX CPM Non POFA compliant and citing Elliot v Locke

Coupon-mad

You what?!

bergkamp

Mr_Picklehead wrote: »

Do you have a copy of it? Would you be happy to share it. I don't need it now but might be useful with regards to WS.

It is site specific. Their WS showed a close up of a sign, then a site plan with no signage marked on it. Report here;

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5739126/uk-car-park-management-try-very-hard-to-enable-shedule-4&page=4#69

And remember the hired gun representing Gladstones, representing the PPC, will only have got your WS and THEIR WS the night before the court appearance....

You will (should) know more about the whole case than them.

bergkamp

Coupon-mad wrote: »

You what?!

TD is referring to the observant policeman in E vs L I believe;

In due course he was interviewed by a police officer. There had been collected at the scene of the accident a certain
amount of debris consisting in particular of paint and filler. On the 31st January an officer, P. C. Anderson was on
duty when he saw a blue metallic Honda car, which obviously corresponded with the description of the car in the
accident, parked on the west side of Carisbrooke Road. He sensibly, observing it had a damaged front wing, took
some particles of paint and filler compound from that damaged wing.

http://www.davidmarq.com/bama/Elliott%20v%20Loake%20%5B1983%5D%20Crim%20LR%2036.pdf

Mr_Picklehead

My relative has a letter from the CCBC saying they have recieved the defence. Gallstones have also sent a copy of their clients Directions Questionnaire. They are wanting the case to be "dealt with on the papers and without the need for an oral hearing" due to the issue being "straightforward" and the costs for an oral hearing would be "disproportionate" (to both parties).. It adds "we trust you agree"... Aside from the costs to Gallstones (if they lose) is there anything else to be gained from an oral hearing?

KeithP

Mr_Picklehead wrote: »

Aside from the costs to Gallstones (if they lose) is there anything else to be gained from an oral hearing?

Oh, yes. Most certainly.

A significantly increased chance of winning your case.

By attending the Defendant is able to challenge all that the Claimant asserts.

By not attending, obviously the Defendant will not be able to do that and will need a really top notch Witness Statement to make his position unassailable.


Are you not following the NEWBIES thread guidance on how to answer every question in your Directions Questionnaire?

Where you will see, in Bargepole's 'what happens when' post:

Note: Gladstones are currently including a 'request for special directions' asking the Court to hear the case on the papers only, without an oral hearing. You should oppose this, and include the following text in D1: “The Defendant opposes the Claimant’s request for special directions, and requests that the case be listed for an oral hearing at the defendant’s home court, pursuant to CPR 26.2A(3)”.

Mr_Picklehead

Yes I saw that - but wanted further advice. Not everyone is confident / skilled in presenting themselves in court. Some witnesses / defendants can do themselves no favours even when legally there should be no problem with their defence. There is therefore a risk of that and I wondered if all the benefits outweighed the risks.

KeithP

Do you understand that the hearing is likely to be three ordinarily dressed people sitting round a table having a (structured) conversation?

Watch this short video:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=n93eoaxhzpU

Mr_Picklehead

Thanks KeithP - that's reassuring. I need to re-read the post about someone acting as a lay representative and then take them apart (hopefully). There can be no evidence that the defendant was the driver because they were not. I'm unsure how much they might be required to prove that - because it my mind the burden of proof rests with the claimant. Elliot V Loake is not relevant, and then it's clear there can be no keeper liability because the PCN was non POFA compliant. I'm quite surprised they want to go to court and argue the toss!

Coupon-mad

Definitely go to the hearing.

In April we saw three posters duck out, against our advice, and ALL THREE saw their case lost, and not only that, larger costs were allowed (not just the fake 'debt collector costs' £60 add-on but also legal rep's appearance fee) then would have been granted had the D understood to just GO ALONG and speak up against the scam and costs.

There can be no evidence that the defendant was the driver because they were not. I'm unsure how much they might be required to prove that - because it my mind the burden of proof rests with the claimant. Elliot V Loake is not relevant, and then it's clear there can be no keeper liability because the PCN was non POFA compliant. I'm quite surprised they want to go to court and argue the toss!

Totally agree.

Castle

Mr_Picklehead wrote: »

). There can be no evidence that the defendant was the driver because they were not. I'm unsure how much they might be required to prove that - because it my mind the burden of proof rests with the claimant. Elliot V Loake is not relevant, and then it's clear there can be no keeper liability because the PCN was non POFA compliant. I'm quite surprised they want to go to court and argue the toss!

The defendant should send a SAR to HX.