Residential PCN help please - ***I WON***

Coupon-mad

amateurgirl said:

Hello all
Fruitcake asked me above to show the Claimant's WS, particularly the contract between them and the landowner. I can't show it all, there's loads of it, but in terms of the contract, the contract they've submitted is between them and the MA, not between them and the landowner. They've not shown any involvement of the landowner at all, despite being given the opportunity to do so (and nor has the MA). Also, I've realised the contract is not for my estate, it's for a different estate altogether.

I think the WS is a document template, like all their other correspondence. It contains the predictable ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis argument viz:
"The Court will be aware of the Supreme Court judgement in Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 which ruled that Parking Charge Notices might engage the penalty rule because, where applicable, they may not amount to genuine pre-estimates of loss, they have a legitimate interest and commercial justification, that is, the control of parking, such that the penalty rule was not contravened. As such, Parking Charge Notices of the type which are the subject of this claim are payable when validly issued as a result of a breach of the terms and conditions of parking at the relevant site. As was also recognised in Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, the Claimant also has a legitimate interest in providing an income stream to meet the costs of operating the service and make a profit"
Do you have any views on any of this, please?
Thanks, all.

Honestly that is old news and we won't be giving views about why every case is distinguished from Beavis. 

You do need to read the Beavis judgement of course but please don't ask us to rewind to 2015 and start explaining it all over again. You can tell for yourself that your case has no 'legitimate interest' and that's the crux of showing how your case is different.

amateurgirl

Hello all
I've done a skeleton argument for the forthcoming hearing, mainly as a crib sheet for myself, but my other witness thinks I should have sent it to the court with my WS. Do you think it's too late to send it to the court? 
Also, he knows I can get tongue tied in difficult situations, so he says he'll speak for me if I start tripping over my words. Can he do this though, and if so do I need to tell the court in advance?
Thanks all.

Umkomaas

If it's a formal Skeleton Argument, then you can send it to the court and the Claimant. 

Your 'other witness' can speak for you as a 'Lay Representative', but this must be announced at the outset of the hearing. While it should be an automatic entitlement for him to Lay Rep, some Judges can be crotchety, so make sure you/he have the Lay Representatives (Rights of Audience) Order 1999 with you. 

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1999/1225/made

Also check out the role of a LR (and a McKenzie Friend - another form of defendant's assistant) by doing some Google searches on each. 

Coupon-mad

You can't chop and change between you and him speaking.  Decide now, who will present your case.  When you give the phone numbers for the hearing to the court (as per the Order from the court about the hearing) add his name and phone number too and tell them he will be your lay representative and the court must phone BOTH of you to join the call.


Read the Lay Reps Order as linked by Umkomaas and link it in your email in case the court don't understand what you mean, and that he will speak for you.  Some Judges try to refuse.  It is your RIGHT to use a lay rep.

Your crib sheet does NOT have to be sent to the court, it's merely your own notes!

amateurgirl

Thanks, all. 
CM, as far as I know mine's not a phone hearing, it's face to face. I did ask someone at the court if it was going to be face to face and was told it was. The hearing is imminent and I've not had anything so far from the court saying otherwise. When my request for a transfer to my new local court was refused, the reason given was because court time and resources had already been spent on allocating it at the original court, so that would seem to confirm that it's face to face. Are they likely to change their mind at this late stage?  

Coupon-mad

Maybe, yes, they do switch some to phone hearings at many courts.  But print out the lay reps order and if it is in person, you and him take it with you and hand it to the Usher when you sign in (aim for half an hour early). 

If they say 'oh, are you a McKenzie friend?' the answer is NO.  LAY REP UNDER THIS ORDER!
 
As long as you filed and served your WS and evidence in time, and a costs assessment of course, then you are set.

amateurgirl

Hello all
Thanks to everyone on this Forum, and all the advice and guidance you've given me, I won my case yesterday.  
The hearing was supposed to have been over the phone, but I wasn't informed, so I turned up at the court (as did the Claimant's legal rep).The Usher had to find a judge to come in. As a result, he didn't have my WS or any of the exhibits, but he found my Defence on the system, and he began to base his judgement on that. Luckily I had a copy of my WS which I passed to him - having read that, he dismissed every claim. 
This win was entirely due to the Defence and the WS, both written with the help of this Forum's  regulars - Coupon-Mad, Redx, Nosferatu, Umkomaas, Keith P, Fruitcake, Le Kirk, Beamerguy, D-P-Dance - not to mention the many posters whose cases I followed and learnt from. 
So thank you so much to you all, I couldn't have done it without you. Next stop is the CoP consultation (and a 'right to be forgotten' application to Claimant and their Legals). 

Coupon-mad

Brilliant news!  DId you use a lay rep or did you speak up for yourself?  What actually won it?

Glad to hear you will be adding to the public consultation, we need people like you and your relatives to all do it, to increase the weight of the public voice.

Redx

well done, another fail for the PPC,s , UKPC in this residential case !

Amother one bites the dust !!

beamerguy

Well done, another spanking for UKPC IN A WEEK.

Skimmed back through the thread, was the legal SCSLaw ?