Britannia Parking POPLA appeal

Coupon-mad

Yes you can file and serve your skeleton argument (and your costs schedule, if you like) with a few days to spare - there is no set in stone deadline for those.

crazydoglady91

Great, thank you

Time to go stationary shopping!

Umkomaas

crazydoglady91 wrote: »

Great, thank you

Time to go stationary shopping!

You won't get far with that. Try stationery shopping!

Coupon-mad

Umkomaas wrote: »

You won't get far with that. Try stationery shopping!

LOL, and while you are about it, get four candles...

:rotfl:

crazydoglady91

Haha, must be all the talk about parking playing on my mind! :rotfl:

Update time!

I received their evidence pack today. I have to say, I’m not sure I’ve ever been so unimpressed with something in my life (in a good way)! They don’t even seem to be trying. The evidence is nothing more than a list of correspondence and the same old pictures as before. They continue to rely on Beavis and other irrelevant cases, but I was expecting that. They allege to not have received my WS, but I have proof on the contrary.

I also received a reply to my email, with a slightly childish argument that the sum of £5 was paid for parking, therefore the driver must have seen the signs. I thought “is this all they’re going to be relying on in court?”

Here’s the exact wording:

Whilst you have advised of the alleged inadequacies of our Client’s signage, please note that you were able to make payment of £5.00 on the Contravention Date, which was an insufficient payment for the period in which you were parked. We would be grateful, therefore, if you could please advise of how the signage was in any way “insufficiently clear” given that there was a clear understanding that payment was required to park.

I was expecting more of a robust response than this. I might not bother responding, and just point out how this argument is extensively dealt with in my defence and WS. I’ll also re-send the WS, along with the proof that the original email was delivered for good measure

The person dealing with my case is also a paralegal under supervision, so more good news I suppose! Not some scary image of a person my brain had conjured up from watching too much American TV :rotfl:

Coupon-mad

The PDT machines in these car parks never have a tariff that includes the penalty, so it is always possible - indeed likely - that a person paying at a machine never sees anything telling them about the fine and punitive terms that they will later be bound by.

beamerguy

Coupon-mad wrote: »

LOL, and while you are about it, get four candles...

:rotfl:

Don't you mean "fork 'andles"

beamerguy

crazydoglady91 ....... we don't know who writes this rubbish at BWLegal but long may they keep their job

crazydoglady91

Hi all,

I'm starting to think a bit more about the content of my skeleton argument and make sure that I can rebut BW Legal's points smoothly on the day.

I've been perusing BWL's witness statement again this afternoon, and I wondered if somebody more familiar with legalese could translate this for me?

THE PARTICULARS OF THE CLAIM ARE INSUFFICIENT
31. The Defendant's allegations are denied. The Claimant's claim was issued online using Money Claim Online. Under paragraph 4 (1) PD 7E -Money Claim Online, the Claimant's claim meets the conditions for starting a claim using MCOL.
32. Under paragraph 5.2(1) and (2)(b) PD 7E, the Claimant's particulars of claim were included in the online claim form, however, it had to comply with the restrictions of having only 1080 characters to set out its particulars.
33. The Claimant relies on paragraph 5.2A PD 7E which states:
"The requirement in paragraph 7. 3 of Practice Direction 16 for documents to be attached to the particulars of contract claims does not apply to claims started using an online claim form, unless the particulars of claim are served separately in accordance with paragraph 5.2 of this practice direction."
34. For the reasons set out above, there has been no breach of the PD 16 or CPR 16. In any event, the Claimant's particulars are clear and concise and the Defendant is put to strict proof to the contrary.
35. Further, the Claim form has been before Deputy District Judge Jolley, who has considered the matter and took no issue with the Claim form when listing this for small claims.

What is it they're trying to say here, that they didn't have enough room to be specific? By my quick estimate, the particulars of the claim they issued uses less than half the maximum they state they are allowed. There was more than enough room for them to state the terms they allege were breached.

I know this isn't a big point to focus on, but since they're apparently "holding me to proof", I feel like I should have a good understanding of how to rebut this.

Le_Kirk

Looks like a standard attempt at bull feathers! Trying to bamboozle you with "legalese" but the plain facts are and the question to ask is "did the particulars of claim accurately give the reason why the PPC was pursuing you?" or did it just say failure to abide by T&Cs?