2x Separate Court Claims from Excel

George_W12

Thanks again Coupon-mad, I'll make those amendments.

I've chosen not to mention the problems I had with the online payment service at this stage (which caused delays to payment as mentioned in my appeal) because I feel the onus is on them to explain their case, given I can prove payments were made on both dates and details of the T&Cs they keep referencing have not been provided (blurred photos only). Do you think that's wise?

I was also debating whether to mention the fact that the signage was later amended (using gaffa tape over key sections) suggesting that whatever it said was not fit for purpose on the date in question. Worth including?

Coupon-mad

I've chosen not to mention the problems I had with the online payment service at this stage (which caused delays to payment as mentioned in my appeal) because I feel the onus is on them to explain their case, given I can prove payments were made on both dates and details of the T&Cs they keep referencing have not been provided (blurred photos only). Do you think that's wise?

Yes that seems wise and can wait till the Witness Statement.

I was also debating whether to mention the fact that the signage was later amended (using gaffa tape over key sections) suggesting that whatever it said was not fit for purpose on the date in question. Worth including?

Yes I would add that to the defence as a separate point, and elaborate later in the WS.

George_W12

Thanks, added to section 19:
"At some point after the date in question the Claimant’s signs had substantial sections redacted and new paper signs were attached to lamp posts and walls around the car park. These actions were presumably taken by the Claimant in an attempt to remediate issues with the insufficient and unclear signage that was in place on the date in question."

nosferatu1001

Remember a defence is an argument. 
That reads as a WS
Maybe turn it around:
The claimants signs were insufficient in number and unclear in wording to bind the driver of the Defendants vehicle to anyt contract. In apparent recognition of this after the date in question the claimant added new (paper) signge to the site ,and removed significant sections of text from existing signs. The court is invited to draw the obvious conclusion that these actions were only undertaken becuse the claimant recognised a deficiency in signage and wording - it is not reasonable to assume they undertook this costly exercise for no reason. 

Coupon-mad

That's better - and the word remediate wasn't right anyway!

George_W12

Thanks, that reads better, I’ll rework it.
Out of interest, what’s wrong with the word remediate?

How do you rate my chances? I’ll be a little concerned if it doesn’t get thrown for abuse of process...

Redx

abuse of process is not a defence to the core terms, so they could drop the extra charges and try for the core pcn,s plus the legal fees etc

some firms like Parking Eye do not even add on the extra charges so abuse of process is never there, its just as easy for the claimant or court in your case to dismiss the extra charges but still deal with the core terms, like the one posted today in another thread that won, where the judge dealt with both issues separately

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6171773/win-against-gladstones-es-parking#latest

Coupon-mad

George_W12 said:
Out of interest, what’s wrong with the word remediate?

How do you rate my chances? I’ll be a little concerned if it doesn’t get thrown for abuse of process...

Re-mediate means (sort of) 'mediate again'.  You meant remedy, surely?

We see 99% wins and have done since 2017.  I won another case by phone today on all counts...

George_W12

Hi all, thanks again for the help so far.
Quick update.... 
My defence and DQ have submitted in good time as per the guidance.
I've now received 2 identical letters from Excel offering a reduced settlement of £125 (so basically removing the £60) - attached
They state that they will use the letter in court if/when it comes to costs. I don't intend to pay, but do you think its worth responding in any way? 
I notice they've entitled the letter 'Vehicle Control Services vs (me)' rather than Excel, so hope this oversight is a sign of things to come....

Umkomaas

but do you think its worth responding in any way? 

What were you thinking of saying?