Telephone Hearings re parking firm claims - can we all discuss strategy and outcomes here

D_P_Dance

 It's a waste of money -

No, it is just small change

I notice you failed to respond on the other threads with why the sra would give two figs. Found a reason yet? 

I have no idea, and neither do you  perhaps you should read this

https://www.sra.org.uk/sra/how-we-work/what-we-do

henrik777

"For the avoidance of doubt, should the court decide against striking the claim out, I am not in agreement with the case being heard 'on the papers' because in parking cases such as this, I strongly believe that it is important that the consumer's voice is heard to rebut the inaccuracies in the 'evidence' re the car park location/event and the lack of a prominent contract, liability or legitimate interest, when the Judge takes on the unenviable task of reviewing the vast amounts of template cut&paste paperwork and undated 'stock' photographs this Claimant is known to file."


I would add something to cover the sparse statement of case which is usually followed by a case made by witness statement right at the death placing the defendant at a huge disadvantage if the first time the defendant sees such a witness statement is at completion of the bundle. Standard PPC M.O.

D_P_Dance

Indeed, the whole idea is a travesty imo, why not go the whole hog and copy North Korea

nosferatu1001

D_P_Dance said:

 It's a waste of money -

No, it is just small change

I notice you failed to respond on the other threads with why the sra would give two figs. Found a reason yet? 

I have no idea, and neither do you  perhaps you should read this

https://www.sra.org.uk/sra/how-we-work/what-we-do

Not for everyone it isn't. 

I've audited them in my prior life as an internal auditor working for a second tier audit firm. So I do have more idea than you, I would hazard. I got to see how they approached complaints. Your scattergun approach doesn't faze them, in any way. They're filed under crank

BrownTrout

nosferatu1001 said:

D_P_Dance said:

 It's a waste of money -

No, it is just small change

I notice you failed to respond on the other threads with why the sra would give two figs. Found a reason yet? 

I have no idea, and neither do you  perhaps you should read this

https://www.sra.org.uk/sra/how-we-work/what-we-do

Not for everyone it isn't. 

I've audited them in my prior life as an internal auditor working for a second tier audit firm. So I do have more idea than you, I would hazard. I got to see how they approached complaints. Your scattergun approach doesn't faze them, in any way. They're filed under crank

I agree. They are not bothered at all

Coupon-mad

henrik777 said:

"For the avoidance of doubt, should the court decide against striking the claim out, I am not in agreement with the case being heard 'on the papers' because in parking cases such as this, I strongly believe that it is important that the consumer's voice is heard to rebut the inaccuracies in the 'evidence' re the car park location/event and the lack of a prominent contract, liability or legitimate interest, when the Judge takes on the unenviable task of reviewing the vast amounts of template cut&paste paperwork and undated 'stock' photographs this Claimant is known to file."


I would add something to cover the sparse statement of case which is usually followed by a case made by witness statement right at the death placing the defendant at a huge disadvantage if the first time the defendant sees such a witness statement is at completion of the bundle. Standard PPC M.O.

Good idea, I've now added a section there about that and used your phrase 'right at the death' because it hits the point home very clearly.

henrik777

https://youtu.be/B1-uDn2-A28

A barrister on bundles for remote hearings.

Obviously it's has Fast and multi track in mind but that doesn't mean it doesn't contain useful thoughts for small claims track.

D_P_Dance

I agree. They are not bothered at all

At the moment  that is true.  But Rome was not built  in a day.

Snakes_Belly

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8140141/Britains-courts-potential-hotbeds-coronavirus-senior-judge-warns.html
 Some courts are dirty places. Italy have suspended all hearings.

D_P_Dance

But surely no more dangerous than Westminster Bridge after a Police clapathon.