Eurocarparks CST law LBA SAR no response

beamerguy

judrop500 said:

@nosferatu1001 I intend to go over everything thoroughly soon. I think what you and @Coupon-mad are saying is that they have claimed something as a statement of truth, which is inconsistent to what has been claimed before? Is this a legitimate defence?
My question really is not the content of the defence (apart from the above point) and more whether the court / judge would frown upon me submitting two very similar documents? 

Thanks again.

The point is ....... was the original a lie or the new one a lie

Civil Procedure Rules bring mandatory changes to statements of truth

https://www.dacbeachcroft.com/en/gb/articles/2020/march/amendments-to-the-civil-procedure-rules-bring-mandatory-changes-to-statements-of-truth/

nosferatu1001

It is not a defence
Not everything someone does wrong results in a defence to the claim made against you. It is entirely possible for them to do something wrong, be sanctioned for it, and for you to still lose the underlying claim. 
So be careful about nomenclature. 
However, go through their original POC and their NEW POC
COmpare them
Any changes made - not just added details, but fact A changing to fact B - you want to summarise in a concise para and point out to the court that, as both POC were signed under a statement of truth, you ask which version of the truth the court is suppsoed to believe, and whether the court feels sanctions are appropriate.

judrop500

Ok thanks everyone - I’ll get cracking on this ASAP.

judrop500

Ok so I intend to reuse my orevious defence, but add in the following paragraphs at the start:

This defence, in response to the the claimant’s second particulars of claim, remains largely unaltered from the defence dated 29 September 2020 addressing the claimant’s first particulars of claim, except to reiterate my objection to the additional spurious charges, particularly the surcharge, which is more than double recovery and is an abuse of process. I would ask the court if it feels these sanctions are appropriate?

Furthermore, there are now two particulars of claim - the second expanding greatly on the first with a number of additional details, including:

a) that the charges relate to a pay and display car park;

b) that an ANPR system was in use;

c) that the site is private land managed by the claimant;

d) the terms and conditions relating to parking on the site;

e) specific dates and times of alleged breaches of the terms and conditions;

f) the alleged issuing of PCNs, NTKs and debt recovery charges;

g) a breakdown of said charges.

These two particulars of claim differ greatly but both were signed as a statement of truth, so I would ask which version of “the truth” the court is supposed to believe?

Do let me know if I have missed anything out. Cheers!

KeithP

Do you perhaps need to show that not only do the two Particulars of Claim 'differ greatly', but how they conflict with each other?

It is that conflict that means parts of one PoC are untrue, not just that they differ.

After all, you would expect them to differ - the Court ordered that. 

nosferatu1001

That's what we told you to do - find contradictions

you would expect them to be different. But they shouldn't contradict

also,,what sanctions do you refer to when you say "these sanctions"?

judrop500

nosferatu1001 said:

That's what we told you to do - find contradictions

you would expect them to be different. But they shouldn't contradict

also,,what sanctions do you refer to when you say "these sanctions"?

You put “these sanctions” in your earlier comment^^ - I assumed you meant financial sanctions, as I did?

Ok so I’m struggling with ‘contradictions’. The situation is that the first POC was three sentences, and the second POC is three pages. So there are no contradictions as such, just a lot more detail.

nosferatu1001

Except read again what you wrote! Read the whole sentence and you will see "these sanctions" in your text relates to an earlier part of the sentence, but there are no sanctions mentioned. You have only mentioned what they did wrong
The courts have multiple sanctions they can apply to a party in breach of an order; for a claimant party that could be striking the claim entirely, dismissing documents etc. 
I would always suggest any sanctions they feel appropriate
Yes, we know there is a change in size. But
Do
They
Contradict?
Any material factual changes? You know, you have it there. It should take a few minutes at most. Because before yoiu complain to the court, you better know if you have reason to complain or not. 

judrop500

@nosferatu1001 no they don’t contradict, the just expand hugely.

nosferatu1001

Which was the point of the sending further and better particulars
So now, do they meet the requirements of CPR16.4?