Help, got until 24th November to submit Defence for VCS

Leviathan747

Hi guys, do I have to print out the entire POFA Schedule 4 for the Judge?  It's 9 pages long!! Is trying to save paper in a court case a non sequitur? 

KeithP

If you had written " do I need to print the whole of POFA" I would've responded "no, just Schedule 4".  

Just print the relevant paragraphs.

Le_Kirk

I note that the Statement of Truth has not been signed by the Claimant.

If you mean the statement of truth supplied by and on behalf of the claimant, you should say so, as it is/could be confusing to the judge.

Leviathan747

Le_Kirk said:

If you mean the statement of truth supplied by and on behalf of the claimant, you should say so, as it is/could be confusing to the judge.

Thanks LK! Amended here:  1. I am the registered keeper of the vehicle in this case. I am unrepresented with no legal background in county court procedures, I trust that the Court will excuse my inexperience, if need be, and if any of the documentation is not presented correctly. I note that the statement of truth supplied by and on behalf of the Claimant, has not been signed by the Claimant.

Leviathan747

FYI: Just noticed that BP's Company House No. for VCS needs correction to 02498820 (instead of 04298820): https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/02498820 

nosferatu1001

Why wouldy ou talk about the claimants Statment of truth at point 1? What relevance does it have to any part of 1)?
Be logical

Fruitcake

I have only skim read as my Lovely Cousin and I have been celebrating our joint borfday today. Normal service will be resumed tomorrow. 

In 4, you say the signs were and are for Excel, but in 8 refer to VCS signs being inadequate.
Your two points are contradictory unless you say something like, if the contrary is proven (referring to the Excel signs) then you can say the VCS signs were inadequate.
Either Excel signs were in place at the time of the alleged event (Google maps show they were there in May 2019, mention 2 hours free parking and I think you should include this) or VCS signs were inadequate. 
Personally I believe showing Excel signs in May 2019 having replaced VCS signs in August 2018 is a stronger point.

6 c is repeated after 7.

I think you need to expand on the copy of the contract dated Sept 2018 sent to you by VCS is for Excel which is backed up by the Google Maps images showing Excel signs a few weeks before the alleged event. Everything points to the parking (mis)management being with a completely different scumpany to VCS.

Leviathan747

nosferatu1001 said:

Why wouldy ou talk about the claimants Statment of truth at point 1? What relevance does it have to any part of 1)?
Be logical

Where would you put it?

Leviathan747

Fruitcake said:

I have only skim read as my Lovely Cousin and I have been celebrating our joint borfday today. Normal service will be resumed tomorrow. 

In 4, you say the signs were and are for Excel, but in 8 refer to VCS signs being inadequate.
Your two points are contradictory unless you say something like, if the contrary is proven (referring to the Excel signs) then you can say the VCS signs were inadequate.
Either Excel signs were in place at the time of the alleged event (Google maps show they were there in May 2019, mention 2 hours free parking and I think you should include this) or VCS signs were inadequate. 
Personally I believe showing Excel signs in May 2019 having replaced VCS signs in August 2018 is a stronger point.

6 c is repeated after 7.

I think you need to expand on the copy of the contract dated Sept 2018 sent to you by VCS is for Excel which is backed up by the Google Maps images showing Excel signs a few weeks before the alleged event. Everything points to the parking (mis)management being with a completely different scumpany to VCS.

Happy Borfday FC!! 

Amended here: 8. The font sizes on the Excel signs are very small and packed with confusing patterns and symbols around them. The sign is a mass of confusing and contradictory words. The icon showing the PCN charges are hidden in the small print. It is not prominent or obvious to see by a motorist driving, even very slowly, past the sign. I submitted that no reasonable person would agree that their terms were brief, clear and prominently proclaimed. 

"6 c is repeated after 7" - this is using gumgirls headings for each section.  It helps locate things quickly! Might delete all headers before sending to court if you think it's better? But might guide the judge's eye...

Coupon-mad

#23 to #29 is a really out of date version of the wording you really want about the added £60 and abuse of process.  No-one cites the Caernarfon case with DJ Jones-Evans and no-one cites the old original Summer 2019 strike-out order by DJ Grand at Southampton.  SO MUCH MORE happened since that!

Remove Exhibit HC21 and HC22.

Instead go and read the template defence and use the 3 judgments that are appended to defences now, and grab some of the words from the template defence to tie the exhibits in.  Replace #23 to #29 with suitable words cribbed from the template defence thread.  

We are not linking it.  It's easy to search for!