Help! Have followed advice so far...but worried

Lotuslady

Dear lovely helpers here,

Have just had it confirmed from the court today that my case is definately going ahead for this Monday 16th @ 3pm.The District judge has said the claimant’s case will be presented on papers as they will not be attending. And that if I wish to rely on the video evidence i will need to attend as I have already informed the court that I do not wish to have a remote hearing..

Am fine about the above... however, have been reading my WS and have noticed some typos I have made which seem quite major to me.. The 1st concerns my referring to the Claimant’s WS  which I say is on page 10 (it should read page 14!!)

The second is another error where I have referred to page 25 and 26 of their WS instead of page 25 and 27..

How do I deal with this.. I have yet to send my supplementary WS recommended by Fruitcake on 5th August as was waiting to see if Claimant paid the fee and the case went ahead...  Can I add my errors to this and send asap and how (via email?)

Also made another major F*** up in that my Costs schedule it appears I did not copy, but sent the only original to the court...(the computer copy I have is unsigned/written on)  I have a photograph of the signed and written on costs schedule.... well in fact 2 different ones.. as I amended it last minute on recommendation here...so I have 2 costs schedules...  Neither is quite right to be honest..  The first details everything and itemised by time and task.. so looks good.  The second has UNREASONABLE BEHAVIOUR and time spent on what itemised.. but have not put the actual amounts of time spent ie hours and minutes, though have made a statement about it not truly reflecting the amount of time I spent on the case etc and the stress and anxiety it caused etc due to my having had PTSD when the ticket was issued...  It seems like a major !!!!!! up to me as I now need to produce one for court and not 100 % sure if I did really send the one citing the unreasonable behaviour (which doesn’t have any time/cost estimations on..)

Also Gladstones have been in touch in last 2 days and again today saying my costs schedule is blurry (as was a photo of it) and can I send it again... Don’t want to get done for contempt of court or anything... what do I do PLEASE?!!! Should I produce both or do a completely new one... Can I?

Thank you in advance kindly souls

Le_Kirk

Send a supplementary WS and beg the court's indulgence and that you only wanted to correct a couple of page number typos to assist the court during the hearing and please find the FINAL summary costs assessment.  Send to court and claimant.  That sorts your issue with the blurry copy for claimant.

Coupon-mad

Send an up to date costs schedule now, stating that you have taken the opportunity to do a final assessment an this is the correct one.

Don't worry about the typos, just cover that in the hearing. 

A rep WILL attend you know.  A 3rd party legal rep, not from Gladstones though.

nosferatu1001

The typos are minor. Don't worry. Easily explained. 

Lotuslady

Thank you all for your welcome advice, think I will redo a final summary costs assessment
and do a supplementary witness statement also.  Thanks again for your speedy replies.. on the case.  And thanks for warning re rep attending!

Johnersh

If you plan on doing a supplementary statement, which is possibly overkill, where a letter might suffice, including a table with 3 columns should make it clear at a glance:

Para number, page referred to, corrected page

Numbering going awry is common. If you're there in person to walk the DJ through it at a hearing, it's nothing to worry about. It's not for nothing Sedley LJ coined "sedleys law of documents" 

Coupon-mad

Hahahaha!   @Johnersh, I had to Google that phrase but we've seen this so often!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Sedley#"Sedley's_Laws_of_Documents"

"Sedley's Laws of Documents"

He formulated what has come to be known as "Sedley's Laws of Documents" after experiencing the tribulations of litigation:

1. Documents may be assembled in any order, provided it is not chronological, numerical or alphabetical.
2. Documents shall in no circumstances be paginated continuously.
3. No two copies of any bundle shall have the same pagination.
4. Every document shall carry at least 3 numbers in different places.
5. Any important documents shall be omitted.
6. At least 10 per cent of the documents shall appear more than once in the bundle.
7. As many photocopies as practicable shall be illegible, truncated or cropped.
8. Significant passages shall be marked with a highlighter which goes black when photocopied.
9. (a) At least 80 per cent of the documents shall be irrelevant. (b) Counsel shall refer in Court to no more than 5 per cent of the documents, but these may include as many irrelevant ones as counsel or solicitor deems appropriate.
10. Only one side of any double-sided document shall be reproduced.
11. Transcriptions of manuscript documents and translations of foreign documents shall bear as little relation as reasonably practicable to the original.
12. Documents shall be held together, in the absolute discretion of the solicitor assembling them, by: a steel pin sharp enough to injure the reader; a staple too short to penetrate the full thickness of the bundle; tape binding so stitched that the bundle cannot be fully opened; or a ring or arch-binder, so damaged that the arcs do not meet.

Lotuslady

Thanks for that Johnersh And Coupon-Mad for the link! 😂

Lotuslady

Dear All,

It has taken me some time to digest what went on and also to pluck up the courage to admit I “lost” in terms of the case when my case was heard on Monday 16th November @ 3pm.  I don’t remember the judge’s name even as went completely blank in the courtroom at one point!
I was ordered to pay £200 costs.. though Gladstones were NOT allowed to add on additional costs like they had previously.. so at least this was less!  Gladstones did send a representative, and I have to say I felt totally unable to fight my corner at the time... When the judge asked the Gladstones rep about the infamous Jack Chapman signature their rep said they did exist and the judge took that to be fact as far as I can see despite no evidence to prove otherwize...  In her summing up she said “on the balance of probabilities, I should have seen the signs...” despite I thought showing that they were unlit... on the day on her screen the video showed up much darker than on my computer!  

To be honest I am glad the whole experience is over, and learnt a lot from it so no loss there, and am very pleased and happy to have had all your wonderful support on this forum.. in retrospect I wouldn’t have done it any differently as the judge said after the judgement why didn’t I pay beforehand when it was less money? I repeated that as far as I was concerned I didn’t even know I was in a car park as didn’t see any signs...!

In retrospect... can’t believe I didn’t take a pen in.. as didn’t think it was something that would be allowed... (don’t know what I was thinking!?) I think this would be very good advice to give to make sure you do take a pen in on the day to write down stuff that their rep is saying that you don’t agree with and is in your statement proving to be otherwise...  As I feel I was a bit caught out also by them apparently by being overly polite in my emails with Gladstones during lockdown where we were “trying to negotiate” and I had “thanked them for their swift response iniitially during this process which the rep brought up in court.  Despite later on in this process having evidence that they had taken 21 days and something like 23 days to respond to me which I felt was extremely unreasonable...

If am honest their rep’s questions and representation left me feeling quite confused and speechless at one point...  From a personal point of view as am training in trauma.. it made me realise I still have trauma around certain situations (having previously had long term PTSD). And this has been a huge benefit for me as have now been able to start addressing the causes of that trauma through EFT therapy I have sometimes and starting to deprogramme it! So a benefit... I am a Buddhisit so am always looking to create value from a situation and I do feel I won in other ways as I did the best I could on the day... And stood up for what I feel was justice..

Realise this is probably not the news you wanted to hear (I was in shock afterwards!) but goes to show you need to be totally and completely prepared pen and all on the day and really prepared and able to fight your corner on the day which I felt I wasn’t entirely!

Don’t know if this will be of any help to any of you out there.

Coupon-mad

Hiya, that's a shame but good to know the fake costs were not allowed, yet again!  £100 PCN plus £50 court fees and £50 legal costs then.  They have lost money with this case.  How odd that the Judge decided you should have seen there were unlit signs in the dark!  From what you say about her question to you afterwards, she just didn't get it that in the dark it didn't look like a car park, ir looked like some unrestricted bays. 

Judges need to stop assuming what a PPC calls a 'car park' actually looks like one in real time in the dark, if the signs are unlit and the entrance sign obscure/small.

Next time, please please please do what I do.  I always check out GoogleStreetView first to find a suitable street or two, before I visit places, then set the satnav for that street.  I never look for any 'parking' nor any car park/private land/retail shops areas.  Never drive round the back of shops, just don't go there. 

Parking is best on street especially in the evening.

I am glad there were some positives, plus you had this life experience which helped you move on and grow stronger, with no CCJ risked or anything.