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

Grimghast

Hi guys
I'm just finalising my witness statement and wondered if anyone would be able to give it a good coat of looking at?
I should also add I received a letter from the scammers offering to reduce amount to £145 as there attempt to resolve the dispute as they have a "very strong case" with a threat to seek an additional £220 costs if I dont accept because theyve had to instruct a solicitor! 
Just wondering where I stand with regards to these extra costs if I did lose ? 
Cheers 

nosferatu1001

CPR27.14 deals with small claims track
Note the complete inability to get costs unless the other party behaved unreasonably
ALso, do a search! That quesiton is asked a lot

Grimghast

Thanks nosferatu I did think that its also refenced in my witness statement in my schedule of costs, they just panicked me with their letter so wanted to clarify just more scaremongering and intimidation on their part!

Umkomaas

Grimghast said:

they just panicked me with their letter so wanted to clarify just more scaremongering and intimidation on their part!

It's their entire business model. While no guarantees, them making you a 'special offer', while maintaining they have a 'very strong case', is often the precursor to a discontinuation. We've seen it many times, but you've got to keep playing the game right through to conclusion, whatever/whenever that may be. 

Grimghast

ah a game of brinkmanship lol I'm up for that 
I shall just keep coming back here for reassurance  

beamerguy

Grimghast said:

Hi guys

I should also add I received a letter from the scammers offering to reduce amount to £145 as there attempt to resolve the dispute as they have a "very strong case" with a threat to seek an additional £220 costs if I dont accept because theyve had to instruct a solicitor! 
Just wondering where I stand with regards to these extra costs if I did lose ? 
Cheers 

How stupid they are ....... if they thought they had a strong case why discount ????
If it does go to court, what a perfect letter to show a judge threatening to add £220 for a solicitor when only £50 is allowed in the county court. Not to mention the added scam add-on.
I am sure the judge will agree that is a feeble attempt of extortion ?

They have two choices ...
1: Discontinue and walk away
2: Go to court, spend £220 on a legal, get spanked once again by a judge and lose. They then face your costs, £95, 

The mind boggles who writes such letters ??????

And of course VCS already know about this .... Excel being owned by the same bod
EXCEL v WILKINSON ..... claim struck out for ABUSE OF PROCESS.  DDJ Jackson who is now HHJ Jackson made this ruling.  
https://www.dropbox.com/s/m7cl746rkejelfx/Excel v Wilkinson.pdf?dl=0

You, hold the Ace, VCS hold the joker

Grimghast

Just wondering should i post my witness statement here for you guys to check over ? or can i pm someone with it to make sure its ok before I send it off? I have until monday / tuesday to email it to the court.
Tia

Coupon-mad

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''.

Fruitcake

As soon as you get the scammers WS and Exhibits (evidence), post it here. Hopefully you will get it before you have to send yours, so you can add comments about it in your WS.
Please only redact YOUR personal data. 

If it is too long to post it all then please show us the first page with the (para)legal's name, the last page with the statement of truth and signature, as well as the alleged parking contract and anything else useful you want the regulars to look over.
Do not redact anything on the contract, but do tell us if the scammers redacted anything.

Umkomaas

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.