I WON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

beamerguy

Umkomaas said:

Coupon-mad said:

Post it here and add some words about Excel v Wilkinson, into the usual point about the added £60.

 e.g. your extra paragraph could say:

 At the Bradford County Court, District Judge Claire Jackson (now HHJ Jackson, a Specialist Civil Circuit Judge) decided to hear a 'test case' a few months ago, where £60 had been added to a parking charge despite Judges up and down the country repeatedly disallowing that sum and warning parking firms not to waste court time with such spurious claims.   That case was Excel v Wilkinson: G4QZ465V, heard in July 2020 and leave to appeal was refused and that route was not pursued.  The Judge concluded that such claims are proceedings with 'an improper collateral purpose'.   This Judge - and others who have since copied her words and struck dozens of cases out in late 2020 and into 2021 - went into significant detail and concluded that parking operators (such as this Claimant) are seeking to circumvent CPR 27.14 as well as breaching the Consumer Rights Act 2015.   DJ Hickinbottom has recently struck more cases out in that court area, stating: ''I find that striking out this claim is the only appropriate manner in which the disapproval of the court can be shown''.

Nice summarising paragraph @Coupon-mad. If you don't mind I'll bookmark it for future reference. 

What a corker 
Must be included in every defence/statement where they add fake amounts. ........ that will be every claim then ?

It's now in the abuse of process thread
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6103933/abuse-of-process-thread-part-2/p1?new=1

Fruitcake

Take it down NOW!

Your name is showing in more than one place.
The claim number is showing
You should redact your VRM.
The scammers should have redacted other VRMs. You will need to do that as well, or only show us the most relevant pics with VRMs redacted.

You were told to redact your personal data.

Fruitcake

Okay, it's gone now. I have grabbed it anyway and will comment later, but without revealing any personal data. 

Umkomaas

How can a paralegal employed by the claimant for only 4 months have any credibility in writing a Witness Statement and signing a Statement of Truth about a parking event that took place over 4 years ago.  I realise there are some weasel words used in the opening gambit of the WS, but I do think this credibility issue should be raised with the Judge, possibly as a preliminary at the hearing. 

Grimghast

its down thanks fruitcake! School boy error

Fruitcake

I added more to my previous post, so you need to check that as well.

Fruitcake

Who is the landowner? Have you identified them yet?

It the scammer's WS signed as a statement of truth, Para 17 says that the contract is directly with the landowner.
The contract itself says lawful occupier, not landowner, so there is no proof the landowner has a contract with the lawful occupier authorising them to form a legally binding contract with a third party scammer.

A contract must be either with or flowing from the landowner. If the latter, then there must be a contract between the landowner and occupier, which in this case has not been produced or its existence proved.
Indeed, there is no proof that the landowner actually knows about this contract at all. 

Even if you don't know the identity of the landowner (which you actually should have determined by now), you can still say that the lawful occupier is not the landowner, and therefore do not have a contract with or flowing from the landowner.
This means that the paralegal's comments in para 17 of their WS is not true, yet has been signed under a statement of truth.

I'll get on to contract signature requirements in due course, but  the contract fails the strict requirements of both Sections 43 and 44 of the Companies Act 2006. These are very short Acts so worth a read yourself.

Grimghast

Edited version of claimant WS personal details removed.
I believe the land owner is bisichi (properties ltd) ? 
https://www.dropbox.com/s/vb12hovphz3r28g/claimant WS - edited.pdf?dl=0
Just working on removing personal details from my WS draft ill then put link up for that.
Cheers

Fruitcake

I do not believe the landowner is Bisischi properties Ltd. I think they are a property management company. If they were the landowner, the contract would say so. It actually says they are the lawful occupier which is not the same thing.
Knowing the identity of the landowner is basic stuff.

Fruitcake

Your VRM is still showing in the text of their WS.