Gladstones/LPS - County Court Claim

pkul01

Hello nosferatu1001
It says:
"16. The party whose application or hearing it is, is primarily responsible for sending an electronic PDF bundle for the remote hearing by email to the other party and to the Court no less than 48 hours before the hearing.
17. In any event it is the responsibility of each party, and they must co-operate with each other, to ensure that no less than 48 hours before the remote hearing an electronic PDF bundle for the hearing is filed with the court."
So, yes it seems Claimant has to file. However, if they do not agree to the bundle contents as we want i.e. they do not co-operate in reasonable manner, then we can file our own bundle?

Coupon-mad

Your Dad is not agreeing to the phone hearing though and he has seven days to object and give his good reasons in response to that last Order that crossed with your email.  Have you emailed as Dad and said ''no'' to the telephone hearing again, in direct response to the Order, as suggested?

Gs will not arrange a telephone hearing if they've said they want to take no part and have it heard on the papers, so Dad needs the court to receive an email urgently that says:
1.  No to the telephone hearing, and why.
2.  No to the case being heard on the papers, and why.

Then you can plan the bundle - what's the deadline for that?  Your Dad is expected to (must) comply with that deadline, even though he is objecting to the remote hearing.

nosferatu1001

Of course you file your own bundle
If the claiamnt REFUSES to create the bundle as they have been ORDERED to do by the court, then guess what - thats *another* element to bring to the courts attention, that the C has BREACHED A COUTR ORDER OF X DATE by.... and so you ask the court to exercise their case management powers by striking out eh claim, as reasonable sanction for the Cs breach. 

pkul01

Hello Coupon-mad
My father has emailed the Court at their email address that:
a) was used to file the WS statement and Supplementary WS
b) was given in the Order - remotehearingsBCC@justice.gov.uk - giving the objection and reasons and copied to Gladstones as instructed in Order.

There was no deadline on the Order...it just stated:
"The matter listed on 03 June 2020 in OPEN COURT is hereby vacated and shall be listed for a remote HEARING on FIRST OPEN DATE with the same time estimate of AS BEFORE.
At that hearing, directions shall be given as to the future listing of this matter, arrangements for future attendance by alternative means, including telephone, Skype for Business or such other HMCTS approved provider and the provision of electronic bundles."

The text of email he sent is below and included the forwarded 20 May 2020 COVID19 covering email:
"Important Preliminary matter and Witness statement and evidence from the Defendant

(Email 1 of 2)

Dear Sir / Madam

I am the Defendant. I asked my son to file, on my behalf, my Witness Statement and Supplementary Witness Statement with the Court and he did this on 19 May 2020, a clear 14 days prior to the hearing date of 03 June 2020. He did this as I have not ever had an email address until today, 04 June 2020.

I also asked him to send a COVID19 covering email to Deputy District Judge Waschkuhn who was to hear the case on 03 June 2020. This email was sent on 20 May 2020 (shown below) and as it referred to exhibits in the witness statements, these were also sent as separate emails due to the email size restriction at Brentford County Court.

The purpose of the COVID19 covering email was to explain:

-          a number of points why I did not want the case being heard “on the papers”

-          being 89 years old and have hearing problems I cannot use the phone (either landline or mobile) at the best of times, I get anxious and worried when things happen unexpectedly - e.g. when phone calls fail, having to dial/call again or the line quality is poor. I would not be able to liaise with the Claimant about a “shared bundle” and will not able to access a telephone hearing.

Therefore, I was surprised to receive on 01 June 2020 an Order dated 22 May 2020 from District Judge Hussain about a telephone hearing because that is wholly unsuitable, and this had already been explained in the attached email and I can only assume 'crossed in the electronic post'.

As I have said already, I have not agreed to a hearing “on the papers” because (as stated in the COVID9 covering email):

a)   This claim is following the usual oppressive parking robo-claim path, with a very sparse statement of case, later followed by a case made by way of ambush, with a tendency to produce prolix witness statements, right at the death.  This places Defendants at a huge disadvantage, given the first time they see any 'evidence' is at completion of the bundle, and their only chance to point out that large parts of the evidence are completely irrelevant, is at trial.

 

b)   The case of JD Wetherspoon Plc v Harris and others [2013] EWHC 1088 (Ch.) is an example of the Court using its power to limit the evidence by striking out large parts of a witness statement for abuse, because it was written by a person with no personal knowledge who recited facts based on the documents he had read.  Similarly, parking charge witness statements contain template legal argument, misleading reliance upon ParkingEye v Beavis and even more irrelevant case law, and are more designed to stand in terrorem of defendants than to assist the Court in determining the substantive issues.  

c)    Such third party 'witness statements' lack probative value and are very often created by freelance legal writers and 'signed' (or facsimile 'signed') by a third party who is not a witness in the true sense, and who relies upon misleading and irrelevant extracts of case law and undated, old or 'stock' images of signs, some of which are often not even present at the location in question. 

d)   In my case, I strongly believe that I must be afforded a fair opportunity to rebut the inaccuracies in the 'evidence' re the car park location/event and highlight the failure to demonstrate a prominent/legible contract, or liability, or legitimate interest.  I am the only local witness, in the true sense, and I believe that, if the claim is to be heard, a decision cannot be fairly made without a hearing in my presence.  If the claim is not struck out, I would prefer a hearing in person once the pandemic lockdown is lifted.

 

If the claim is not struck out, I ask for new Directions when a face to face hearing can be arranged later this year once the pandemic lockdown is lifted."

pkul01

Hello nosferatu1001
Yes, we will be preparing a bundle but point 17 of Order says "...of each party, and they must co-operate with each other.....and electronic PDF bundle for the hearing is filed with court."
Thats what made me think we need to send bundle to Gs and agree one bundle.
Having said that Gs letter to Court stated they would not be attended hearing on 03 June 2020 and to be heard on evidence submitted. So if they do not want a telephone hearing then, unless we hear back from the Court that there will be a face to face hearing, we will need to prepare our bundle well in advance.

nosferatu1001

Yes, you send it to G
If they dont cooperate, you send it to the court directly, explaining G have not cooperated to produce the bundle. 
ITs a fairly obvious step to take! EVen though ttheyve said the yWONT attend, they are still ORDERED to do something so bloody wel make them do it, and drop them in it with the court if they dont. 

pkul01

Thx nosferatu1001.

Coupon-mad

Sounds like dad has done all he can, let's see what the Judge comes back with - hopefully a later face to face hearing.

pkul01

Coupon-mad
Yes, lets see. The only thing is that when I spoke with lady at the Court she said that once they email is printed and put in the file the Judge will review the file the day before the telephone hearing. I presume that when the Court re-lists the hearing as a telephone hearing, the Judge will not be involved at this stage. If however the Judge is involved i.e. issuing new Directions, then perhaps the covering emails will be read and a later face to face hearing set.

pkul01

Update - I called the Court and spoke to the same lady on my father's behalf. She confirmed receipt of the emails that my father sent (including the COVID19 covering email). It has been printed off and will be put in the file. She also said that she has requested the file be referred to a duty judge who will review the file prior to any re-listing of the hearing. Most likely will take at least a couple/three weeks before file sent to judge.