County Court Business Centre Claim Form via BW LEGAL

earth_moon626

IamEmanresu wrote: »

Some editing questions.

Why are you referring to both the BPA and the IPC? If you check the IPC site you will have a date when PPS switched. That's what they will be working to on the dates in question.

Thanks IamEmanresu,

I checked the IPC website and Premier Parking Solutions Ltd Accreditation Start Date was
01/03/2016 which was after these PCN's were issued so I will remove IPC references from my defence.

earth_moon626

IamEmanresu wrote: »

There is no presumption in law but there is inference. But in any case, ask yourself this question. Is it better for the driver to come out as the driver can talk with authority about the signs on the day. Someone who is not the driver can't but if you insist the signs were unclear, it comes back to inference again. An inference that may be to your disadvantage.

I see where your coming from, however I'm unsure of what to change. I gather from what your saying I should remove points about unclear signs if I intend to fight this on the grounds that I was not the the driver. And if I intend to fight it on the grounds that the signs where unclear I should admit I was the driver.
Is this what you're suggesting?

Thanks

earth_moon626

With the reply to my SAR Premier Parking included photo's of the signage on the dates in question and the photos alone show how poor and hard to see the signage is so would not be able to refer to these photos in a hearing to back the case even tho I was not there at the time?

System

With the reply to my SAR Premier Parking included photo's of the signage on the dates in question and the photos alone show how poor and hard to see the signage is so would not be able to refer to these photos in a hearing to back the case even tho I was not there at the time?

Yes. There are 3 in the room. You weren't there. The judge wasn't there and the person from the PPC is highly unlikely to have been there. So there is this guessing game about whether the driver could have seen the signs or not. It is then up to the Claimant to prove to the judge the clarity of the signs. Poor evidence is unlikely to do so, but it doesn't stop them from trying which annoys judges a lot.

Unless the pack is crystal clear, you point out there is no legal certainty that the signs were visible and could convey a contract. Sounds like a case that will be drop or a 5 minute job at a hearing.

Justice13075

Any update?

earth_moon626

Hi all, so in September, after a quiet two years of not hearing anything and the cases seemingly being dropped after my defence was sent, I recieved a General Directions Order for both cases stating; It is ordered that: The application to lift the stay and for direction questionnaires to be issued is granted. 
Note: This order has been made without a hearing under the Court's case management powers contained in the Civil Procedure rules part 3. You may within 7 days of the service of this order, apply to the Court to set aside or to vary the order under part 23 Rule 10. etc... 
With these letters, I also received Notice of Proposed allocation of the small claims track. 
I sadly didn't pick up these letters until well after the 7-day timeframe as they were sent to my old address. 

Next I recieved letters from BW Legal with copies of their client's (Premier Parking) completed Directions Questionnaire.  

Then I received letters from BW Legal writing in reference to my defence and setting out their clients position in response to my defence (I won't copy their response for now unless needed). Within the envelope for these letters, I received another letter for each case regarding Without Prejudice Save as to Costs inviting me to resolve the matter outside of court for a reduced fee. 
I didn't take them up on the offer, and didn't contact them. 

Then I received a General Form of Judgment or Order ordering that The defendant must file the directions questionnaire with the CCBC on or before 7 days of service of this order. 
I sent the directions questionnaires for each claim promptly via email. 

I then received another General Form of Judgment or Order letter from the County Court stating that the claim had been transferred to my local county court without a copy of the defence on file. So it was ordered that I file a copy of the defence to them which I did. 

From this point on, I have only received correspondence regarding 1 of the 2 cases, so I assume my local county court are only proceeding with 1 of them for the time being. 

So now, I have received another General Form of Judgment or Order letter noting that remote hearings are now taking place due to the covid pandemic and it is ordered that; 
Suitability for determination on the papers
1. Pursuant to the power so to do in CPR Part 27.4(1)(e), the court gives notice to the parties that it considers the claim suitable for determination on the papers without a hearing as permitted under CPR 27.10 if all parties agree to this. 
2. The parties must notify the court (by email) and every other party, by XXX date. 
a. If they agree to a paper determination, in which case the court may determine the claim without a hearing pursuant to CPR Part 27.11(5), no application can be made to set aside the judgment of the court and the outcome can only be challenged by appeal under CPR Part 52 which requires the permission of the court; 
b) if they do not agree with a paper determination, then they must state their reasons, after which a judge will decide without a hearing whether the claim is suitable for some form of determination at a hearing where the parties are present remotely (eg by telephone, Skype for business or some other similar platform) or whether the claim should be deferred until after the current Covid -19 restrictions have altered sufficiently to permit a hearing at which the parties attend at court. 
Right to review this order 
3. Because this order has been made without a hearing any party may apply persuant to CPR Part 3.3(5) to have this order set aside, varied or stayed. A party wishing to make an application must send or deliver the application to the court (together with an appropriate fee) to arrive within seven days of service of this order. (*my cut off date for that is tomorrow) 


I feel really disappointed in myself for not remembering to ask the knowhows on this forum sooner, I had no idea on what grounds I would apply to have the order reviewed, so am aware I have left it probably too late to go down that route given the cut off date is tomorrow.
I am unsure of what to do now. I had a look through the forum to find someone with a case that has been restarted during the covid pandemic and also had a re-read of the newbies thread.
I guess I need to send my approval for the hearing to go ahead remotely and go from there. 

Thank you to the people who put their time and energy into helping others here. If I have missed a relevant post covering what I should do next then sorry, I would be happy to be directed there. For now I will keep searching the forum for answers too. 
Thanks again! 

Le_Kirk

There has been some activity with PPCs/solicitors having stays lifted without paying a fee; search the forum for these.  What you don't want is a hearing on papers, because that leaves you at the mercy of 1) a judge who won't know your case and 2) the lies story that the PPC /solicitor will tell with no comeback from you.
Check out the telephone hearings thread: -
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6130456/telephone-hearings-re-parking-firm-claims-can-we-all-discuss-strategy-and-outcomes-here/p1
and information within that thread about "on papers".

nosferatu1001

You MUST tell the court you do not agree. It's really simple. You are at massive disadvantage. 

Did you update court and claimant OFFICIALLY with your new address?

earth_moon626

Thanks for the quick reply @Le_Kirk, much appreciated. Yes after continuing reading through the forum I realised that the recent letter is asking if I will go ahead without any hearing at all! So I will be sure to decline the offer for the case to be determined on the papers, but will read up on anything I need to see beforehand. 

beamerguy

earth_moon626 said:

Thanks for the quick reply @Le_Kirk, much appreciated. Yes after continuing reading through the forum I realised that the recent letter is asking if I will go ahead without any hearing at all! So I will be sure to decline the offer for the case to be determined on the papers, but will read up on anything I need to see beforehand. 

You can only accept a telephone hearing or video call.  Maybe face to face depending on covid

Heard on papers or mediation is the most dangerous thing for you