Advice re blue badge owner

Coupon-mad

You could try but don't hold your breath.

And in court, definitely don't use the words 'fake or false' about any document (and certainly not fraud or any suggestion of criminality).

Notice I just said it's cut&paste, according to the odd page numbering.  That's a safe observation to point out to the Judge.

Umkomaas

HotelUniform74 said:

Coupon-mad said:

Add to your crib sheet that, far from being evidence, this document appears to be a cut & paste creation!

Wow if thr suggestion is that the contract is a fake document that is debauchery I would never have expected or thought of.

I'm amazed at the thought to be honest.

I've never heard it called that before, but hey, I'm open minded! 🤫

(Dictionary Definition: excessive indulgence in sex, alcohol, or drugs).

On a more serious note, and I admit to being completely confused as to where anything is after the thread has been running for 2.5 years with almost 350 inputs, but isn't the Kitsons letter shown as proof that PPS are the leaseholders of the car park (since 2014) and, ergo, the landholder? The actual landowner surely has nothing further to do with any 'chain of authority' (if that is what the OP is attempting to dismantle?).  But happy to be turned in the right direction!

Coupon-mad

Yep I don't think landowner authority is the battle to pick in this case

It's a counterclaim case isn't it?  The authorities for claiming damages for distress are one main focus, plus (as ever) no contract formed by signage.

[Deleted User]

I got the trial bundle today from the Claimant. A great big ring binder.

They've called me by a different name in their trial bundle index, not just a spelling mistake!

Unbelievable, especially as they try to justify their double recovery by referring to how they carefully "quality check" their documents.

It would be funny if it wasn't so frustrating to have to defend myself against them.

Jenni_D

Does the name they've called you bear any resemblance to your actual name? (i.e. would it still identify you, or is it that of a completely different person?)

It may be that they've sent a WS for a different defendant's case ... in which case you bring this up as a preliminary matter and urge the judge to strike out their WS as it does not relate to the case at hand. Therefore as they have no evidence to support their claim then their claim should be struck out. Furthermore, as they've not filed evidence they're in breach of the court order and have acted unreasonably .... etc. etc.

It also potentially supports a GDPR claim - as if they've sent you a WS pertaining to someone else, who have they sent their WS to pertaining to yourself?

[Deleted User]

Jenni_D said:

Does the name they've called you bear any resemblance to your actual name? (i.e. would it still identify you, or is it that of a completely different person?)

It may be that they've sent a WS for a different defendant's case ... in which case you bring this up as a preliminary matter and urge the judge to strike out their WS as it does not relate to the case at hand. Therefore as they have no evidence to support their claim then their claim should be struck out. Furthermore, as they've not filed evidence they're in breach of the court order and have acted unreasonably .... etc. etc.

Same surname, but a different forename.

On the trial bundle index they call me by a different name. For example if my name was Andrew they've called me Albert instead.

My name is correct on the top page of their WS.

A remarkable lack of professionalism and obviously no quality checks by them.

Jenni_D

I'd still raise it as a preliminary matter - that you have concerns regarding the veracity of the claimant's WS given that they can't even get your name right, nor use it consistently through their document. Is it a hodge-podge mix up of two separate cases for defendant's with similar names? Has the person signing the WS with a statement of truth signed a false instrument?

In other words, try to cast doubt in the judge's mind regarding the claimant's WS.  

[Deleted User]

Jenni_D said:

I'd still raise it as a preliminary matter - that you have concerns regarding the veracity of the claimant's WS given that they can't even get your name right, nor use it consistently through their document. Is it a hodge-podge mix up of two separate cases for defendant's with similar names? Has the person signing the WS with a statement of truth signed a false instrument?

In other words, try to cast doubt in the judge's mind regarding the claimant's WS.  

OK thanks Jenni I will

Is it just a case of emailing the court with 'preliminary matter' as the subject and then explain in the body what you related above?

Thanks again 

Jenni_D

A preliminary matter is raised at the hearing, once it starts:

"Sir (or Madam - depending on who is the judge), I'd like to raise a preliminary matter if I may. It concerns the claimant's witness statement and evidence. I have concerns regarding the veracity of their submission, given that it seems to refer to myself but also refer to another with the same surname as myself but a different first name. I have doubts that the submission relates solely to this specific claim, or whether it is a hybrid of this claim and another claim against a defendant with a similar name. As such I would ask you to consider whether the submission should be struck out as it cannot be relied upon to be accurate or solely related to this claim. And if you are so-minded to strike out the submission, this would aver that the claimant has no evidence to support their claim - they can't even give oral evidence as they have no witness at this hearing - thus their whole claim should be struck out".

After that - if you have a counterclaim - then you ask that this now be considered.

[Deleted User]

Jenni_D said:

A preliminary matter is raised at the hearing, once it starts:

"Sir (or Madam - depending on who is the judge), I'd like to raise a preliminary matter if I may. It concerns the claimant's witness statement and evidence. I have concerns regarding the veracity of their submission, given that it seems to refer to myself but also refer to another with the same surname as myself but a different first name. I have doubts that the submission relates solely to this specific claim, or whether it is a hybrid of this claim and another claim against a defendant with a similar name. As such I would ask you to consider whether the submission should be struck out as it cannot be relied upon to be accurate or solely related to this claim. And if you are so-minded to strike out the submission, this would aver that the claimant has no evidence to support their claim - they can't even give oral evidence as they have no witness at this hearing - thus their whole claim should be struck out".

After that - if you have a counterclaim - then you ask that this now be considered.

Awesome as ever, thanks Jenni