UKCPM Claim form received - Allocated Space/Access By KeyFob

Coupon-mad

And finally, change the gaps or font so that your signature and date is not orphaned on it's own last page - that looks odd.

dspan156

Afternoon All,
Update on my hearing
I have my court date via telephone scheduled for Wednesday 18th November and I have since recieved two letters from the claiments solicitors Gladstones (attached).
Letter 1 is their trial bundle (I will also email another copy of my defence bundle to the court this evening). Letter 2 appears to be a letter stating the claiment will not attend, does this also mean Gladstones will not be attending the hearing? 

Coupon-mad

No, it's the usual thing you see in every Gs thread.  You need to read some court hearing ones and learn who turns up.

nosferatu1001

Is that what the court order states? That each party emails their own one, and no consolidated bundle?

Johnersh

Is there a photo ANYWHERE of the windscreen of the car at the time?

Based on what I can see, the o/p is saying not only may there be technical points as to why no permit is needed, but actually the blooming thing was there to be seen anyway and, it follows, that even on the ppc's best argument they have no case as there was compliance. 

Personally I'd not have conceded the permit was only part displayed, I'd have gone with it was displayed if the info to check bay numbers was visible. Does Jack actually rely on any photos? 

dspan156

Its an absolute farce, photos were taken by the parking attendent on the day and the claiment has used these in their defence. The permit they provided is clearly visible and diplaying the allocated bay number

Coupon-mad

Wow, you should hopefully be able to convince the Judge that this conduct is wholly unreasonable.

Johnersh

Yes. A shame your statement concedes its only part visible, but that's done. I'd still be arguing its entirely visible as you can even read the bay number!

I fail to see why a judge would want to trouble themselves with pages of generic statements when they can simply ask 
1. Is the car where its supposed to be
2. Is the permit sufficiently readable to confirm that (which is what the permit fully displayed term exists for). 
If both of those are yes, I'd dispense with this in short order. 

Costs schedules at LiP rates should be served at least 24hrs ahead if you claim costs. Read 27(1)(g) - if memory serves that's the rule - and basically say its vexatious to take it this far. They can see the permit, they've been writing to you at an address they sent the permit to and they've wasted your time, the courts time and should never have brought it, let alone persisted with it. 

Johnersh

Note that Jack chapman says the warden was unable to confirm it was a valid permit because....

Actually only the warden can say what s/he believes. Jack chapman cannot positively say why the pcn was issued.

I've yet to see a sign that says permit plus hologram must be displayed.

The correspondence says not displaying a valid permit, but it was on display and no element of the statement disputes that you weren't displaying a valid permit - on the contrary they confirm you were issued with one.

henrik777

Even if it was so, it's got to be De minimis