HX / Gladstones Hearing today!

Redx

Yes , read recent Court reports on recently concluded court case threads , there are plenty of them

Johnersh

I've not followed the thread, so nothing on that, but Win or lose, remember to address the costs.
 
In the event of a loss, you must ask for the £60 to come off as it is not in the sign and there is no evidence it bears any relationship to any costs actually incurred. The interest calculations are always wrong (the ticket debt and the £60 uplift are applied on different dates). If the £60 goes, then so does the interest. Excluding that alone will have made the day worthwhile.

In the absence of any costs schedule from the claimant (the rules state that they should send a fully itemised schedule 24 hrs before a hearing) then ask for no order for costs. with the claim being a simple small claim there is no reason to instruct an advocate anyway, so those should be excluded.

In the event of a win you then need to ask for your costs. Plenty of forumites have got excited and forgotten to ask.

You won't necessarily be invited to comment on costs, in which case you will need to say "may I address you on the matter of costs, sir/madam" 

abz1000

Hearing between 2-4pm today. Please see my crib sheet attached below let me know what you think. The points 9 and 10 I don't know weather they fully apply to me but on the thread template it was there and I just changed it relevant to my case.

Hearing Day: Crib Sheet / Skeleton Argument

1. The signage was unclear and offered no contract or parking licence of value.

2. Lack of signage, unmarked parking bays, lack of lighting and weather conditions on the night of the event can mislead a driver into a concealed pitfall or trap.

3. The only way to view the terms and conditions of the car park would be by entering due to the narrow road which would be unsafe to stop safely upon approaching the car park.

4. I do not believe the Claimant has landowner authority to pursue this claim. 

5. There is no proof that the contract was still in force at the time of the alleged contravention.

6. The claimant only provided stock images of signs and none of the actual signage at the location.

7. The claimant appended to their witness statement an inaccurate site plan.

8. HXCPM have added £60 that breaches the CRA, POFA and Supreme court case law.

9. The claimant's witness statement is not signed by HXCPM and was written by Gladstone's, and the facsimile signature of Ellie Berkeley is currently being investigated by the Solicitors’ Regulation Authority.

10. The witness Ellie Berkeley appears not to exist and I do not believe will be here to be questioned.

beamerguy

You have all the main points listed. Good luck for later

Coupon-mad

4 & 5 should be swapped with 6 and 7, to keep all the signage argument together early on.  Signage is important!

Add to #8, the full quote from para 419 of HHJ Hegarty's findings at the High Court in ParkingEye v Somerfield (you know, the one quoted in the template defence these days and in the only WS example given in the NEWBIES thread).  That quote is IMPORTANT to draw to the Judge's attention.  Do not go unarmed with it and the link to it, so you can tell the Judge the 'citation number' so he can read it.

Don't ask us for a link and don't get the Court of Appeal stage in error, this is all already in the template defence and WS.


Remove this (below).  It's not true and Claimants are allowed to use facsimile signatures as long as they have read/approved the WS:

and the facsimile signature of Ellie Berkeley is currently being investigated by the Solicitors’ Regulation Authority.

I think she exists so this is clutching at straws that I wouldn't clutch at:

The witness Ellie Berkeley appears not to exist and I do not believe will be here to be questioned.

abz1000

Coupon-mad said:

4 & 5 should be swapped with 6 and 7, to keep all the signage argument together early on.  Signage is important!

Add to #8, the full quote from para 419 of HHJ Hegarty's findings at the High Court in ParkingEye v Somerfield (you know, the one quoted in the template defence these days and in the only WS example given in the NEWBIES thread).  That quote is IMPORTANT to draw to the Judge's attention.  Do not go unarmed with it and the link to it, so you can tell the Judge the 'citation number' so he can read it.

Don't ask us for a link and don't get the Court of Appeal stage in error, this is all already in the template defence and WS.


Remove this (below).  It's not true and Claimants are allowed to use facsimile signatures as long as they have read/approved the WS:

and the facsimile signature of Ellie Berkeley is currently being investigated by the Solicitors’ Regulation Authority.

I think she exists so this is clutching at straws that I wouldn't clutch at:

The witness Ellie Berkeley appears not to exist and I do not believe will be here to be questioned.

Okay perfect will get them changes done immediately. Should I also add a point about the location being next to the train station and how someone could mistake that for the drop off, pickup area?

Coupon-mad

Of course yes, because isn't that what your defence and WS is all about, that it was dark and the signs were unlit and were not visible (BUT DO NOT USE THE PHRASE 'THE DRIVER ASSUMED' AND IF YOU WERE THE DRIVER THEN BE HONEST AND SAY SO):

The driver was dropping a friend of at the train station late one evening, unfamiliar with the area and train station...
 this open area directly next to the entrance of the train station tracks, looked like a car park with no lighting whatsoever which was directly next to the train tracks was the drop off or pickup point. ( Usually very small train stations don't charge for parking unless its long term or they have a drop off/ pickup point.) So the driver and the friend waited for the train to arrive and their letter states the car was parked for 21 minutes and then left. The lighting was very poor and it was very dark. Later on to find out the land was private car park of a hotel that barely even looked like it was running properly once revisited the station during daytime.

henrik777

Just read your witness statement.

The biggest key from Beavis is that ALL parties agreed there was a contract. Further the act of parking in a "free" car park is acceptance.

This is not correct for a pay and display car park. Payment is acceptance.

abz1000

Coupon-mad said:

Of course yes, because isn't that what your defence and WS is all about, that it was dark and the signs were unlit and were not visible (BUT DO NOT USE THE PHRASE 'THE DRIVER ASSUMED' AND IF YOU WERE THE DRIVER THEN BE HONEST AND SAY SO):

The driver was dropping a friend of at the train station late one evening, unfamiliar with the area and train station...
 this open area directly next to the entrance of the train station tracks, looked like a car park with no lighting whatsoever which was directly next to the train tracks was the drop off or pickup point. ( Usually very small train stations don't charge for parking unless its long term or they have a drop off/ pickup point.) So the driver and the friend waited for the train to arrive and their letter states the car was parked for 21 minutes and then left. The lighting was very poor and it was very dark. Later on to find out the land was private car park of a hotel that barely even looked like it was running properly once revisited the station during daytime.

Should I address I was the driver straight away to the judge?

henrik777

abz1000 said:

Coupon-mad said:

Of course yes, because isn't that what your defence and WS is all about, that it was dark and the signs were unlit and were not visible (BUT DO NOT USE THE PHRASE 'THE DRIVER ASSUMED' AND IF YOU WERE THE DRIVER THEN BE HONEST AND SAY SO):

The driver was dropping a friend of at the train station late one evening, unfamiliar with the area and train station...
 this open area directly next to the entrance of the train station tracks, looked like a car park with no lighting whatsoever which was directly next to the train tracks was the drop off or pickup point. ( Usually very small train stations don't charge for parking unless its long term or they have a drop off/ pickup point.) So the driver and the friend waited for the train to arrive and their letter states the car was parked for 21 minutes and then left. The lighting was very poor and it was very dark. Later on to find out the land was private car park of a hotel that barely even looked like it was running properly once revisited the station during daytime.

Should I address I was the driver straight away to the judge?

Witness evidence relies on being credible. No point being evasive about it. Your case appears to be, was there a contract.