UKCPM Windscreen PCN

tank4228

I received the notice from the court stating the hearing will be over telephone, this coming Monday!
Included in the email was a notification stating, 'the claimant has served notice pursuant to CPR 27.9 asking the court to deal with the matter in their absence, so only the defendant will be attending.' Is this a good sign? Do they think they will lose the case so no point in showing up? 
Regarding this point, how should I approach it with the Judge?
Although I'm annoyed the claim hasn't been thrown out yet, I'm kind of happy the end is near and I can draw a line under this whole situation!
Once again, thanks for all the help and advice from everyone 👌

Le_Kirk

You could read it either way: -
1.  They consider they have such a strong case on paper that they won't bother attending as it's a cast iron win OR
2.  They have such a weak case on paper that they are not going to win, so why bother turning up.  (By turning up, I mean virtual turning up via a telephone.)
Either way, just do your stuff, ignore the fact they will not be at the end of the telephone.  It is likely that the judge will lead the hearing.  Just be honest and polite but make sure you put your case.  If you sense you are winning, stop.

Umkomaas

Not wishing to give you reason for complacency, but there have been a small number of UKCPM cases where they have not turned up for the telephone call. However that fact on its own didn't cause a default win, the Judge did go through the process of examining each side's case, but the Defendant won. 

It's highly unlikely that UKCPM will field any of their own staff for the call, and if they use a rentboy legal, it will cost £120(ish) for them to speak on a telephone. 

Coupon-mad

As long as you have put in your WS, evidence and your costs, you will at least 'have the floor' to yourself with lots to draw the judge's attention to.

tank4228

Coupon-mad said:

As long as you have put in your WS, evidence and your costs, you will at least 'have the floor' to yourself with lots to draw the judge's attention to.

Yes, I've submitted everything ! Fingers crossed it goes the way so many others have and I can post on here 'another one bites the dust' !!!

tank4228

And here it is....ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST !!! Case dismissed....such a relief 

tank4228

Massive thank you to everyone who contributed advice! 
The claimant didn't send their 'bundle' to the court and only their original WS so the judge didn't even have a picture of where the car was parked and had to ask me as there was no witness for the claimant to answer. The judge asked a few questions like did I try and resolve this matter with the landowner and I said yes and referred back to my evidence, gaining written consent from an employee of the landowner. 

The case was ultimately dismissed as I paid for parking with the landowner and didn't enter into the UKCPM's contract with the landowner and there was sufficient collateral (I think), so didn't need to abide by their rules. Only loss of earnings was awarded and not the unreasonable behaviour costs. The judge did question me on this, my understanding of CPR 27.14 (bit harsh I thought)

Over and done with in 15 mins. Sooo glad it's over !

Castle

tank4228 said:

The case was ultimately dismissed as I paid for parking with the landowner and didn't enter into the UKCPM's contract with the landowner and there was sufficient collateral (I think), so didn't need to abide by their rules. Only loss of earnings was awarded and not the unreasonable behaviour costs. The judge did question me on this, my understanding of CPR 27.14 (bit harsh I thought)

Over and done with in 15 mins. Sooo glad it's over !

Maybe it was "consideration".

Coupon-mad

Well done!   So happy to hear that UKCPM and Gladstones were beaten again.

You took the words right out of my mouth, @tank4228 - brilliant result!

D_P_Dance

Now consider your revenge

https://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/letter/letter-before-small-claims-court-claim