PCN issued on a private, unadopted road

Coupon-mad

Definitely keep that in.

jackRlnd

For the schedule of costs, how many hours do ppl reasonably spend on 'Research, preparation and drafting documents'

I'd have to say I've spent at least 5 hours overall on this. Is the total time and hence overall costs claimed something that woudl ever sway a judges decision?

Le_Kirk

jackRlnd said:

For the schedule of costs, how many hours do ppl reasonably spend on 'Research, preparation and drafting documents'

I'd have to say I've spent at least 5 hours overall on this. Is the total time and hence overall costs claimed something that would ever sway a judges decision?

If you are going for standard costs the maximum is £95 but you normally have to prove this with copy of recent wage slip.  If you are claiming costs for unreasonable behaviour of the claimant, £500 is the norm (I believe).

Coupon-mad

I’d say less than £500 to look reasonable but don’t expect to get it awarded. 

jackRlnd

I receive a letter from the claimant's solicitor giving notice that they wil not be attending the final hearing.

they've filed and served all the documents and requested the claim be decided in its absence.

does this make any difference to how I should approach the hearing?

Coupon-mad

No because they’ll send a rep like you read about in all the other threads! Read some...search for ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST and you get all the winning court reports.

Redx

It's common practice to send that letter , it also lulls the defendant into thinking that the claimant may be unrepresented , then they baulk when a hired gun turns up !  A third party jobbing legal beagle for hire !!

Assume that a hired gun will be in attendance , plan accordingly

D_P_Dance

Also assume that the hired gun received the brief hours before the hearing and is not a top notch legal brain.  With good preparation they can be probably run rings round them.  

jackRlnd

I received the claimant's bundle and there are a few points there that counter my arguments which I'd like to prepare to argue at the hearing:

1. Right of way: Claimant is relying on Winterburn v Bennet saying there can be no legal right to use the land where there has been sufficient protest by the landowner. The landowner never objected to the parking of residents of the road in the immediate vicinity and it was clear that intention was to prevent 'public' use. In this context, would I, as a resident of the road oposite the landowner, still be considered 'public'?

The claimant is saying that by accepting the permit, no prescriptive right existed. There are two permits being used, one is for temporary use (the one that I was provided with along side the informal agreement letter) and the other was issued to those who signed a car parking license agreement for permanant use. I never signed the latter and only the temporary permit is used. Is the claimant wrong here as I never 'accepted' any permit?

2. Authority to park: They are also saying that an agreement between ukcpm and the landowner was made (dated X) to manage and enforce parking, in accordance with which signage was installed etc. I received the informal agreement with a permit  from the landowner about a month after date X and the letter stated control would only take effect on a date roughly two months after date X. Does the date the actual signs were put up make a difference here to how I should argue that the informal agreement takes precedence over any signage that was present at the time/date of the supposed incident as I don't recall the signs being up when I received the informal agreement. If the date does make a difference, is the burden of proof on me to show the signs were not present when I received the letter?

Coupon-mad

The burden of proof remains the Claimant’s.  

You seem to have got a good grip of the situation and how to argue against their WS, you are on the right track.  Can’t add anything to what you’ve said!