UKCPM Claim form recieved, Poor Signage

Johnersh

@Coupon-mad thanks.  This thread should do, so as to cover Vine:

Going to County Court Business Centre over VCS Parking Charge/ Notice. 

If the statement was signed on 09 Feb (and she refers to the exhibits produced to her, so those were done too). There can be no basis to serve it late. The only reason to serve late is to try and seek some form of tactical advantage/ambush by disrupting the preparation time that the court envisaged the parties would have. 

There's no application for relief from sanction. (they had permission for evidence served by a specific date, they served none. Strictly speaking, they now need permission from the court) 

There's no clarity as to who provided those documents (sources of information)

There's no clarity (as required) as to how the statement was taken, did she type it or sols telephone interview?

The statement makes legal argument/submissions which are not factual, quotes misleadingly from judgments.

30. is wrong. As I recall, the appeal against strike out involved principles of natural justice - the ppc was entitled to respond before facing the draconian sanction of strike out. It is not an authority for the proposition that a case cannot be struck and indeed it is difficult to see how cpr part 3 could be subverted by a single appeal decision from the county court.

31. Is incorrect since the court never went on to consider properly the contractual basis of the charge.

My view is that a sign that says we *may* charge does not permit liquidated damages of £60 (ie. Unspecified, unreceipted and generic) to be claimed which, by their nature are capable of being explicitly part of a contract as additional conditional fees (my comparator for illustration is, for example, bank charges where there are agreed fixed fees for letters about unauthorised overdrafts and the like). Easy enough to say in contract law that the fee if we need to instruct sols is £60. Indeed if they say the CoP does not preclude such bolt ons there's no reason not to specify them in the contract...

But, that's just my take. 

Coupon-mad

This link shows your earlier post on that thread, about the cropped and misleading quote taken out of context, from Vine:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/78151340/#Comment_78151340

TiredJockey

Thanks all, these seem good points to argue, especially the out of context vine qoute I would have no idea if not for this forum. To clarify the WS arrived after 5pm yesterday via email, it does have a case summary letter attached which is dated 22nd march despite the witness statement being dated 9th feb. 

Case summary: 
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zrN0oyWPxcRWwp-pxwofiGs5Rl4PP9Du/view?usp=sharing

Exhibits without the identifiable photographs here, this includes contract and signage: 
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZOtubXGy0ww665F9tfdm6LuBDmgwGBVv/view?usp=drivesdk

Umkomaas

What's the reference in the WS to photos of you in and around the car park?  Do they have such photos?  Have you seen them?  Are they included in the evidence?

Also, the signatures to the landowner agreement don't pass muster. @Fruitcake has the lowdown on the issues at play for you. 

TiredJockey

Umkomaas said:

What's the reference in the WS to photos of you in and around the car park?  Do they have such photos?  Have you seen them?  Are they included in the evidence?

I read that a bit confused too, I beleive what they meant was that as there were no pictures of me in and around the carpark looking at signs that I must have stayed there longer than a "10 minute grace period". But I've never argued anything to do with a 10 minute grace period anyway so its maybe its just copy paste from another case, bit of an irrelevant point for them to make in my case.

Umkomaas

bit of an irrelevant point for them to make in my case.

.... but one that you should challenge if the opportunity arises at the hearing. 

Fruitcake

Umkomaas said:

What's the reference in the WS to photos of you in and around the car park?  Do they have such photos?  Have you seen them?  Are they included in the evidence?

Also, the signatures to the landowner agreement don't pass muster. @Fruitcake has the lowdown on the issues at play for you. 

TiredJockey said:

Umkomaas said:

What's the reference in the WS to photos of you in and around the car park?  Do they have such photos?  Have you seen them?  Are they included in the evidence?

I read that a bit confused too, I beleive what they meant was that as there were no pictures of me in and around the carpark looking at signs that I must have stayed there longer than a "10 minute grace period". But I've never argued anything to do with a 10 minute grace period anyway so its maybe its just copy paste from another case, bit of an irrelevant point for them to make in my case.

I believe it means they have made an assumption based on the absence of evidence. 

The sign is a stock image, not the actual signs on site, and it contains a prohibited premium rate 'phone number.

nosferatu1001

If they make factual statements that are incorrect, then that rraises questions about th e reliability of their "WS"
As the supposed Witness is not there to be cross examined a court should reduce the weight they give such an inaccurate statement

Castle

TiredJockey said:

Thanks all, these seem good points to argue, especially the out of context vine qoute I would have no idea if not for this forum. To clarify the WS arrived after 5pm yesterday via email, it does have a case summary letter attached which is dated 22nd march despite the witness statement being dated 9th feb. 

Case summary: 
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zrN0oyWPxcRWwp-pxwofiGs5Rl4PP9Du/view?usp=sharing

Exhibits without the identifiable photographs here, this includes contract and signage: 
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZOtubXGy0ww665F9tfdm6LuBDmgwGBVv/view?usp=drivesdk

So no photos of the signage in situ, and the "signs" included refer to a 0845 number (banned in 2014) and card fees of £1.50 banned in January 2018 so that would suggest that these "signs" were not present in 2019.

Fruitcake

Please confirm that the scammers redacted the signatures on the contract. I don't want to go down a badger hole about redactions in disclosure if it wasn't redacted by the scammers.

I can't understand why anyone would redact the registered address of the alleged client.