patrons only PCN

D_P_Dance

If there is no contract the PPC  may well have breached your data privacy rights, have you consider a counter claim? 

anicecuppa

Thanks Fruitcake.  That is indeed very helpful. I don't know who the landowner is I'm afraid.
Re. the 'stock image' - that is the substance of the small yellow signs on the wall of the Car Spares building - which you can (just!) see in the claimant's phots - but I think the rest of the point stands.
Re. 'the client not named' - do you say that because it is not the landowner?  I'm slightly unsure what you mean because the PSA does mention 'Carspares Longbridge'.  Sorry if I'm being dense.  And thanks again for the help and encouragement.

anicecuppa

Thanks DP Dance. I haven't. What would that involve?  I'm feeling weak :-)

Fruitcake

anicecuppa said:

Thanks Fruitcake.  That is indeed very helpful. I don't know who the landowner is I'm afraid.
Re. the 'stock image' - that is the substance of the small yellow signs on the wall of the Car Spares building - which you can (just!) see in the claimant's phots - but I think the rest of the point stands.
Re. 'the client not named' - do you say that because it is not the landowner?  I'm slightly unsure what you mean because the PSA does mention 'Carspares Longbridge'.  Sorry if I'm being dense.  And thanks again for the help and encouragement.

But they haven't shown the yellow signs in detail, only a stock image of a white one that isn't installed at the site.
Don't go making their job easier for them.

The PSA says "Carspares Longbridge, (the Client) authorised by the owner of the car park ...", but the owner hasn't been named. The scammers have provided no proof that Carspares is the owner or has authority to act on behalf of the landowner.

D_P_Dance

It would involve you doing rather a lot of research.  Weakness has no place in this game.  

anicecuppa

That's what I feared. I may not have the time or energy.  After the pattern of another defendant, I have argued for further costs (for my time as a litigant in person) on the basis that they would be admissible due to the misconduct of the claimant.

Coupon-mad

Given what has been said about the likelihood I don't get to say anything in court,

Why not?  Normally the Claimant gets to speak first then you get your turn to explain your main points and what you've observed about their 'evidence'.

anicecuppa

Thanks Coupon-Mad.  I made that comment in reference to something Umkomaas said earlier in the thread:
"In many of the court reports we receive, the defendant gets the chance to say very little!  There's unlikely to be the opportunity to showboat your case, or take issue with the claimant's WS in any detail."
I am hoping to file a 'supplementary witness statement tomorrow' in the light of the helpful comments here.

Coupon-mad

He meant that in many cases, the D doesn't have to say anything because the Judge susses it quite quickly.

anicecuppa

That's much more encouraging!!!