Private PCN on residential estate

squire1234

Ok noted with thanks, I will make sure that is in my opening statement.
If they happen to send through the WS tomorrow, after my complaint sent to them today, does this change anything in your opinion?

Coupon-mad

Not really.  You would perhaps add the phrase that you have been 'ambushed' by an unreasonably late WS/evidence.

squire1234

Coupon-mad said:

Not really.  You would perhaps add the phrase that you have been 'ambushed' by an unreasonably late WS/evidence.

Awesome, will do. They haven't sent me anything as of yet.

Have you filed and served a COSTS SCHEDULE already, showing your costs in advance, including time at £19 per hour if the Judge agrees the C has acted 'wholly unreasonably'?

I have served it but not filed, I was going to take with me on the day with a payslip.

I noted that the Claimant has supplied a map of the estate and "marked out" where the signs are in their WS (not for this case). This is completely inaccurate and I don't know if they have done it knowingly or not. The reality is that there are less than half of the signs there as they have shown on this document. Unfortunately, as of 6 months ago, I now live 200 miles away so photography isn't an option, and Google street view images are from 2014, before the parking scheme started. I have a few photos that coincidentally show there are not signs where they claim they are, is this the best I can do to try to discredit their evidence? Or can I shift burden of proof to them to show that there are signs where they claim they are?

nosferatu1001

OP - what does the phrasing in the BIG PRINT say! Thats what matters
WHo 
Is
Offered
A
Contract
Is it anyone? is it permit holders only? Is it authorised parking only?

squire1234

Parking in this area is permitted for: "Vehicles displaying a valid parking permit and parked in the correct allocated bay"

That's the big print. I wasn't parked in a bay as I was unloading therefore no permission and no offer of contract. You've simplified it for me and I get it now, thanks  

squire1234

Was just reading CEC16's post. I have not included CRA in my WS or exhibits, am I still able to refer to it (paras 6, 10, and 14) in reference to abuse of process if needed? And if so, should I take along 3 copies.

nosferatu1001

Yes, because the CRA states it MUSTS be considered. 

squire1234

Update: I lost the case :-( Appreciate the help though everyone and just want to say thanks anyway.

In summary:
Claimant sent a barrister, only met him once I got into the room, pleasant enough guy. Judge was v supportive given it was my first time in court. He said that there were two options regarding the fact I had not receive the supplementary WS: 1) adjournment or 2) we proceed and i am given time to read over the WS, which I had prepared for. He believed that I had not received the document but also accepted that the Claimant had sent it and felt i could have done more to chase it up. Regardless, he didn't want me to feel as though justice hadn't been served. So out I went, read over it and reentered - it was largely similar to the WS for the other cases but there were some additional paragraphs. Of interest was one that stated my Defence was a template one, which they had often seen (ironic), and another that misquoted their own sign alleging that the £60 additional charge was outlined in the initial "contract" - it was not and photographs of the sign put that to bay.

Despite my arguments, which the Judge commented were "presented intelligently", he commented as follows:

1) He was satisfied that the PPC was authorised to be on the residential estate based on a contract the Claimant had presented (although the lease did not make mention of this scheme, this wasn't addressed).
2) That the signs were sufficient to form a contract in their quality and quantity, although admitted that the lettering was indeed small and the financial implication not clear like in Beavis case - regardless it was up to the driver to read the T&Cs and decide. He was satisfied the wording was sufficient for a contract and not forbidding, despite my reference to UKPC v Masterson case.
3) That although I was bound by a residential lease agreement, I had not parked in accordance with it. He went onto say that, essentially, the Contract was working in conjunction with the terms of the lease and not against it.
4) Even if the lease agreement allowed me access to communal areas, this did not mean one could park and there wasn't sufficient evidence to suggest that the Driver was loading/unloading.
5) The one point that went my way was the additional £60 charge, which the barrister tried to justify. I think he, himself, knew that the charge was a long-shot and was very quick to accept the Judge calling him out on it.

Ruling: Claimant is awarded max £100 + interest (had to be recalculated to excl the £60 add on charge) + expenses

All in all, felt I did the best I could - I felt prepared, I was calm, I presented well and clearly enough for someone with no experience of the process. Quite a bummer. I raised the issue of the other claims (which realistically I can't win given substantially same cause of action) at the end to mention that I am abroad and would like it heard on paper - Judge said to get in touch with Claimant and Court advising this. Are there fees involved in this?

squire1234

Wanted to check, do I pay after I receive the court order?

Also, any advice re. these remaining two tickets with hearing in March whilst I'm unavailable?

DoaM

They sent a barrister? Really? Are you sure it wasn't just a rent-a-legal solicitor from the likes of Elms Legal? (If they really sent a barrister then this case has cost them FAR more than it has cost you ... a barrister will have cost them £500+ whereas a rent-a-legal is about £150).