patrons only PCN

anicecuppa

Only the defendant's name and the claim number.

Umkomaas

anicecuppa said:

Only the defendant's name and the claim number.

OK, but my advice still stands. 

anicecuppa

Thank you for the advice.  If I were to go down this route, do I just email the 'court' email address that I have been sending the rest of information to?  How should I address such a message?  

Umkomaas

anicecuppa said:

Thank you for the advice.  If I were to go down this route, do I just email the 'court' email address that I have been sending the rest of information to?  How should I address such a message?  

Just tell the Judge as it is - failure of the claimant to comply with court directions in submitting a late WS.  The WS contains a document that has no applicability to you as the Defendant, it is in the name of entirely different person, suggesting that the claimant has applied little due diligence in collating their bundle, which throws into doubt the quality and accuracy of other parts of the WS. 

Show a draft here for more pairs of eyes to help fine tune it if you wish. 

anicecuppa

Thanks - that's a really helpful summary of what to say - I was just checking the question of who to send it to.  I assume it must be the court email address which is the only one I've used so far?  

Umkomaas

anicecuppa said:

Thanks - that's a really helpful summary of what to say - I was just checking the question of who to send it to.  I assume it must be the court email address which is the only one I've used so far?  

Court email with the subject line to the effect 'For the urgent attention of a Judge (by name if one has been allocated to your case), your name and your court reference numbers'. 

Johnersh

To be honest I'd be saying all that in a hearing, not in advance.

1. Out of time
2. It's a cut n paste job, not properly checked
3. Statement doesn't say how it was prepared as required by the cpr. 

Some observations on the main statement. Others will gave torn into the contract so I'll leave that, but:

A. The images in the statement have yellow signs. The exhibit has white ones. It's not certain the wording comes from the same site. Since the parking photos have a yellow sign we 
Don't know if the parking terms were the same at all. There is therefore no contractual information re indemnity costs. 

B. The 2021 Google images show that each parking bay has been specifically marked car spares patrons only. If that wasn't the case when the o/p parked this is prima facie evidence that the signs were insufficient on a pice of land where there are two businesses. (clearly you need to be careful with A if running this point, as the white signs are up on those) 

C. Had a red line been painted where Mr wilkins has drawn one in his statement that too would have delineated a separate parking area - there is none.

D. Chapelair does permit agreement  through contract to costs - but that was a lease, which had been negotiated, not a sign, where there is no bargaining position.

Further the costs were subject to detailed assessment.  It's by no means clear the schedule of costs submitted wasn't reduced. The judgment specifically says the costs cannot exceed those incurred. I'm afraid there is no breakdown of any costs. But time chasing debts is usual business overhead of a parking company. Hundreds of parking cases come before the court and the recycling of a statement only goes to show that litigation is routine for them and every bit template driven. 

anicecuppa

Thanks Johnersh - point B is a really good one - I hadn't noticed that.  And if you zoom in on their own photo of my parked car you can't see such writing on the bay next to me.  I certainly didn't see any.  I'll need to read D several times to understand it   I think I am inclined to wait and make the points at the hearing re. the supplementary.  As ever, appreciate all the help on this forum.

Fruitcake

GSV from around the time of the alleged event clearly shows there were no surface markings which supports the scammer's own dated images showing they were absent at the time, but were introduced later. This implies that the signage was deemed inadequate at the time of the alleged event, so addition surface markings were required to rectify a known problem.

anicecuppa

Interestingly I got an email from their paralegal today asking me to ring the office urgently. Presumably they were going to try to persuade me to pay a smaller amount and not go to hearing. I haven't rung of course... Don't want them getting my number quite apart from anything else...