Telephone Hearing to Set Aside CCJ at Country Court

injectedmadness

Umkomaas said:

Doubtful, but put it in, the Judge can only say "No". But it does add to the 'unreasonable' angle you'll need to argue in order to claim anything other than the basic costs normally in play in the small claims court. 

Re reading this, does this mean that by adding such costs it will add to what I have to defend?
I've not added these costs now but my time spent on the activities related to the case have added up to quite an amount.
Is my understanding correct that, Abuse of Process means they were being unreasonable?

injectedmadness

This is my draft Schedule of costs. Once again, your feedback on this will be tremendously appreciated.

Umkomaas

injectedmadness said:

Umkomaas said:

Doubtful, but put it in, the Judge can only say "No". But it does add to the 'unreasonable' angle you'll need to argue in order to claim anything other than the basic costs normally in play in the small claims court. 

Re reading this, does this mean that by adding such costs it will add to what I have to defend?
I've not added these costs now but my time spent on the activities related to the case have added up to quite an amount.
Is my understanding correct that, Abuse of Process means they were being unreasonable?

If you're asking for more than the basic costs (half day off work, transport, parking for the hearing) then you'll have to put a convincing case to the Judge. It won't be 'free money' just for itemising the different elements. And a PPC, while they will reluctantly swallow the £100 or so basic costs, will definitely fight over anything else. 'Unreasonable behaviour (UB)' is a very high bar for the Defendant to get over, so you're going to have to get all your ducks in a row before you get there to argue it. 

Abuse of Process might be one of the issues a Judge considers enters the 'UB' spectrum, but not all will. There's no off the shelf answer/prescription for pursuing a UB Claim, but for sure, if you don't ask, you won't get. 

injectedmadness

@Umkomaas A part of me wants to claim the costs as per my schedule, considering this has been 2 years of my life put on hold, mental breakdown, inability to provide my family a permanent home.
Would the fact that the tenancy agents and the managing agents have contacted and asked for the PCN to be cancelled, and no response UKCPM constitute to unreasonable behaviour? Snippet from https://keoghs.co.uk/keoghs-insight/aware/costs-orders-for-unreasonable-behaviour-in-small-claims

Similarly, in another matter we were able to obtain expert evidence which supported the defendant’s defence and served the same on the claimant’s solicitors, inviting the claimant to discontinue her claim.

The claimant refused to discontinue a number of times and proceeded to a final hearing. The judge dismissed the claim and ordered the claimant to pay a proportion of our costs on the basis that her behaviour in pursuing a claim without merit was deemed unreasonable.

Coupon-mad

Yes you can argue for that.  Judges are human and it will be 'Judge lottery' though. 

I've been in front of some Judges who didn't even allow the £95 sum in ordinary costs for the D's missed salary or loss of leave.

injectedmadness

If I have the same Judge, I have a feeling they will listen to my reasoning. Let's hope for the best. I think I'll go with the can't get what you don't ask for logic here.

I'm second guessing my Witness Statement and Defence. I feel that it is too lengthy and wordy. I seem to be going over the same points in some paragraphs. I don't want to lose the judges attention.

Also, I'll put it out there, reading the other threads I don't get the same confidence in my paperwork. Some of the regulars responses to the other defences and WS's have been quite enthusiastically positive. Not so much on the drafts I have submitted. 

I suppose it is the anxiety and jitters, and also I should really be expecting you kind folk to play the role of an encouraging teacher. But as I said, it's probably the nerves talking.

injectedmadness

If I am citing cases in my witness statement do I have to include it as an exhibit in my evidence pack? I see from reading other threads that I do no need to include any of this (besides Southampton) in my defence. But I also see that ChefDave hasn't included it in his Exhibits, but has referenced it. Wasn't sure if that was a typo.

Coupon-mad

Don't append the ParkingEye v Beavis case but you could provide a link to the bailii judgment of the Supreme Court as a footnote if you wish.  But your WS should really be 'your story' abd photos/evidence applicable to your case only, not so much cases or case law which might sit better in a skeleton argument (legal cases) or a Supplementary WS like Chefdave did. 

I suspect he included the Southampton case with his Supplementary WS - that was the intention.

Fruitcake

injectedmadness said:

That is a stock image of a sign. I could use a search engine to find something like that and then say it is what is on the site. Is it identical to the signs on the site itself? Are the signs prominent and easy to read or are they high up, damaged, out of site, covered in foliage etcetera?

It does look like it is identical to the site. Although I did a walkthrough today and the extensive signage that they have shown in their Witness statement doesn't exist today. For some reason this was taken down.

The sign is prohibitive, offering nothing (no consideration) to a motorist who does not display a permit.

I have included this point in my Witness Statement. I will address this by driving up to the parking area and including pictures from the driver's perspective (will ask a passenger to do this).

How big are the actual signs in comparison to the ones in the Beavis case?

The size of the £100 charge is not prominent, nothing like the one in the Beavis case.

I will do a side by side compare of these in my evidence.

The sign is showing a prohibited premium rate 'phone number.
Surcharges for car payments are prohibited.

Is this something I should include in my witness statement?
@Fruitcake

Sorry for the delay in responding.

I would mention that the sign is a stock image, not one from the actual site, and also mention that the signage they have shown in their WS, signed with a declaration of truth, is not present at the site. Include your own photos as proof. Put them to strict proof that they were on the site on the day of the alleged event.

The last line should say, card payments, not car payments. I would include anything that shows how unreasonable the scammers are being by leaving prohibited payment requirements on their signs, instead of going round and amending their signs which they should have done several years ago when the law was changed regarding these payments. It is not a winning point, but is just something to show the scammers laziness, or disregard for "rules".

If/when you get the exhibits stage, please show a copy of the alleged contract between the landowner and scammers. If it is with an agent of the landowner, then there should also be a contract between the landowner and agent, allowing the agent to employ a scammer.
I'm assuming you have challenged landowner authority in your defence, so the scammers must (should) show you the contract.

injectedmadness

Sorry for the delay in responding.

All good! Thanks for the response.

I would mention that the sign is a stock image, not one from the actual site, and also mention that the signage they have shown in their WS, signed with a declaration of truth, is not present at the site. Include your own photos as proof. Put them to strict proof that they were on the site on the day of the alleged event.

So I did a simulation and asked the Mrs. to take pictures of the sign as we approach the gates, then take the ramp to enter the basement etc. I must say, from the driver's perspective and taking pictures at 2x Zoom on a high resolution camera I can hardly make out what the board says. I have included in my evidence, both 1x zoom and 2x zoom pictures to stress on the fact that this would not be visible in normal circumstances. I took pictures in the daylight and in typical night time conditions.

If/when you get the exhibits stage, pleas show a copy of the alleged contract between the landowner and scammers. If it is with an agent of the landowner, then there should also be a contract between the landowner and agent, allowing the agent to employ a scammer.
I'm assuming you have challenged landowner authority in your defence, so the scammers must (should) show you the contract.

I did mention this earlier, and there were some comments about the validity of the contract. The contract they have included in the witness statement for the Set Aside stage, is between the ex-management agency. There is conflicting information about when that ceased and the new managing agents were onboarded relative to the date of the alleged PCN. There is no documentation they have sent regarding landowner authority. I have contacted the MA and asked about this, but really it will be the ex-MA that should have had this authority to give.

Also, the contract is dated in the past when the first phase was built. The second phase was built a couple of years after.