Victory over One Parking Solution / DCB Legal

nosferatu1001

Remember a ws is a series of facts which introduce testimony evidence and exhibits (documentary evidence), it is not a place to argue all over again. Its also first person - dont let "the defendant" slip in, it is "I"!
As for evidence - when you assert something is true, they either accept it is true or dispute it, and should therefore provide some evidence of their own to prove what theyre saying. So dont worry about proving it was THE sign, just that you understnad this to be the type of sign in place at the time. If they dont object to it, great. 

bargepole

I intend to have my son-in-law as Lay representative.   Will I have to talk at all at the Hearing (presumably conducted by phone?) .  If so I may still offer to settle as I really do not want to have to say a word.

There seems to be a common misconception by many as to how these hearings work.

The Defendant, having made a Witness Statement, is a witness to fact - i.e., what he says actually happened. He can be asked questions about the factual content of his statement by the Judge, and also cross-examined on it by the other party's advocate.

The Lay Representative is not there to give evidence, his role is to make submissions to the Judge on the legal reasons why the claim should be dismissed. These may consist of an opening statement of case, and closing submissions after both sides' evidence has been examined.

BrownTrout

bargepole said:

I intend to have my son-in-law as Lay representative.   Will I have to talk at all at the Hearing (presumably conducted by phone?) .  If so I may still offer to settle as I really do not want to have to say a word.

There seems to be a common misconception by many as to how these hearings work.

The Defendant, having made a Witness Statement, is a witness to fact - i.e., what he says actually happened. He can be asked questions about the factual content of his statement by the Judge, and also cross-examined on it by the other party's advocate.

The Lay Representative is not there to give evidence, his role is to make submissions to the Judge on the legal reasons why the claim should be dismissed. These may consist of an opening statement of case, and closing submissions after both sides' evidence has been examined.

you may or may not surprised by the number of judges who actually let the lay rep do all the talking so to speak even if it goes against the grain of the above

bargepole

BrownTrout said:

you may or may not surprised by the number of judges who actually let the lay rep do all the talking so to speak even if it goes against the grain of the above

I wouldn't be at all surprised, having been in such a situation on more than one occasion. Some Judges are sticklers for the rules, others are prepared to let almost anything go in small claims cases.

But, as you don't know until you get there what type of Judge you will get, it's best to be prepared for any eventuality.

valiant24

bargepole said:

BrownTrout said:

you may or may not surprised by the number of judges who actually let the lay rep do all the talking so to speak even if it goes against the grain of the above

I wouldn't be at all surprised, having been in such a situation on more than one occasion. Some Judges are sticklers for the rules, others are prepared to let almost anything go in small claims cases.

But, as you don't know until you get there what type of Judge you will get, it's best to be prepared for any eventuality.

I'm quite worried about this.  I'm almost 80, and no longer have the capacity or composure to defend this case without the longer periods of thinking time that written correspondence affords.  My son-in-law has pretty much conducted the entire matter on my behalf, wrote the Defence statement for me, and will write my Witness Statement, all of which I agree with and therefore signed. 
I would not be confident in having to answer questions about it in Court, and indeed would not be expected to if I paid for a solicitor. 

valiant24

Dear Bargepole.  I read your work at http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2017/07/ukpc-lose-residential-case-tenant-can.html.
This is pretty much my case; I am relying upon the fact that my granddaughter had a right under her Leasehold to park a car at her flat when I visited her.  I can't remember (it was over 3 years ago) whether she or I parked the car.  
Have you any more information on how I can demonstrate that - as you put it - "that the tenant had inherent rights in the contract, which could be derogated to visitors"?

bargepole

valiant24 said:

Dear Bargepole.  I read your work at http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2017/07/ukpc-lose-residential-case-tenant-can.html.
This is pretty much my case; I am relying upon the fact that my granddaughter had a right under her Leasehold to park a car at her flat when I visited her.  I can't remember (it was over 3 years ago) whether she or I parked the car.  
Have you any more information on how I can demonstrate that - as you put it - "that the tenant had inherent rights in the contract, which could be derogated to visitors"?

Every case turns on its own facts, and what happened in one case doesn't necessarily apply to the next one.

It will all depend on the exact wording of the terms, and any covenants, contained in your granddaughter's Lease, and in particular what they say about car parking.

Le_Kirk

Have we seen the lease and, in particular, what it has to say about parking and what it doesn't say about parking specifically visitor parking?

valiant24

Dear Le_Kirk.  I'm reluctant to post the whole lease.  I can quote the relevant sections if you wish?  Or PM the whole thing of course.

valiant24

Hi Bargepole
>> Every case turns on its own facts, and what happened in one case doesn't necessarily apply to the next one.  It will all depend on the exact wording of the terms, and any covenants, contained in your granddaughter's Lease, and in particular what they say about car parking.
What I am expecting is that there will be a general principle of derogation, as very strongly implied in your report on Miss B's case.
Not that anything in my granddaughter's lease will mention derogation or visitor parking rights, which of course it doesn't.
Thanks
V