Hearing end of the Month

jackmarak

Additional information has been sent to the court/C.

The document contained the contract supplied by the C, liquidation papers and a change of a address for a director paper (to link the person named in the contract supplied by C to company number/name and address).

It was explained that all the information is public and can be found online (A link was given)
It was explained that it is rejected that the C is disadvantaged because this information was public.
It was explained this has only been added now due to the C not supplying a contract until the WS stage.

It was broken down and explained that the date of the liquidation was 7 months before the alleged incident.

It was requested that the claim is dismissed based on the evidence.

Coupon-mad

Good, wonder what they will make of that!

If you get an email or call offering to 'settle' you can bet your bottom dollar they are about to discontinue and should hurry in to the local court with a costs schedule and a covering letter explaining why you feel the C has acted vexatiously and wholly unreasonably throughout, from start to finish (spell it out).

And as such, if they now discontinue (less than 14 days before the hearing?) you ask the court to use their discretion and case management powers to order your wasted costs thus far, to be refunded by the C.

jackmarak

A schedule of costs was sent with the witness statement.
Today was the last day documents could be filed.

I get the feeling they don't even read what has been sent lol
Surely this should turn their heads. Two different major angles covered.

The C is acting unlawfully. It's crazy it got this far.

Coupon-mad

Good. You sound as prepared as you can possibly be, which is half the battle!

jackmarak

Cheers!
The defendant was originally not going to attend the hearing , thinking the papers would be enough. (also recently started a new post and felt cheeky asking for time off).
But the thought of the C being sneaky in the absence of the defendant would haunt me.

Chance to don a suit and it's an experience I suppose. Are you able to shake the C/Judges hand at the end of the hearing? Or would the D be tackled by security? aha

System

The C is acting unlawfully. It's crazy it got this far.

No the approach here is to suggest that the C is in "contempt of court" by filing a WS and Statement of Truth, they know not to be true with the intent of misleading the learned judge.

It may be they genuinely didn't know as they genuinely didn't want to know but you can at least ask the question.

With these PPC claims, there is often a letter of authority where the question can be asked - does the C's client actually have the authority to issue a contractual licence to the C. With the likes of UKCPM it is almost always worth asking.

jackmarak

For the skeleton argument.
What legislation/case can the defendant add to the argument
"The company liquidated before the alleged incident took place"?

System

"The company liquidated before the alleged incident took place"?

There is no specific legislation, just centuries of contract law. As their principal in effect did not exist, they had no standing to offer parking. In effect the PPC were themselves trespassers, could not offer parking and were intent in taking financial advantage of people by claiming they did.

Ask the court for exemplary damages commensurate with the financial advantage the PPC were falsely claiming. You can quote the Court of Appeal case

Axa Insurance UK Plc v Financial Claims Solutions Ltd & Ors [2018] EWCA Civ 1330

where it was stated at para 35.

"As to the amount of such damages, as was stated by Arden LJ in Ramzan v Brookwide at [82], the sum must be principled and proportionate. As in that case, given the need to deter and punish the outrageous conduct and abusive behaviour in the present context, the principled basis is to make a punitive award. "

jackmarak

Nice one!
Here's another cracker that's been included:

The parking contract mentions "valid for one year and thereafter is subject to terms of termination (information overleaf)."

> No overleaf information submitted.
> signed date means the contract would expire 6 days AFTER the company liquidated.

Therefore impossible to renew a contract with a company that no longer exists even though the contract was never worth the paper is was written on to begin with.

Coupon-mad

Very good indeed, push for those punitive costs so I would send a draft order to the local court now (setting out what you want the Judge to order) asking for your costs even if the Claimant now discontinues, or for the claim to be struck out/the hearing vacated.