2x Separate Court Claims from Excel

George_W12

I was thinking to politely decline on the basis that £125 is ridiculous and suggest that they drop the case on the basis that:
- I have demonstrated that I paid for parking on the dates in question (and many other occasions) and will be showing the same to the court
- They have little hope of claiming the £60 anyway, let alone the full amount due to abuse of process
- I will be claiming for costs if they continue of £x

I presume there's no negotiating with these people, but TBH if it said £25 rather than £125 I would pay it to save hassle.

George_W12

Thanks everyone for the support so far. 

After hearing nothing since August I received a notice of allocation today for a telephone hearing in late January, but only for the 2nd of the two claims. I asked the local court if they knew about the substantially identical other claim and they said it was struck out in the CCBC back in September. This is a bit strange because I asked CCBC for an update in October and they failed to mention it.

I’ve asked why one case was struck out but not the other but I assume it’s because I kept going on about cause of action estoppel when sending documents (thanks Coupon Mad!). No reply as yet....

For my WS I’m thinking to focus on the following:
1. I paid in full for the parking I used (albeit not within 5mins) but they haven’t explained the basis of the claim other than supposedly breaching as yet undisclosed t&cs.
2. They rely on contract terms that have not been provided to me despite my repeated requests for details, so how can I be expected to defend? (I’ve only seen very blurred images of a sign, both the signs and car park no longer exist)
3. The abuse of process around the £60...
4. Detailed signage is out of view of the car park, small font compared to Beavis case, confusing due to other signs and machines in area and certain terms appear to have been redacted using gaffa tape after the event (based on google maps images).

I have a couple of questions if I may?

1. For points 1 and 2 I want to see their evidence in case they produce a better set of photos or produce detailed terms some other way. Do they have to submit their evidence to me by a certain date to give me time to counter?

2. In the Newbies thread about the WS it mentions if you paid for the ticket don’t argue ‘no loss’. Please could someone elaborate on what this means?

3. Any another advice on the above would be gratefully received...

Thanks again.

Coupon-mad

 I want to see their evidence in case they produce a better set of photos or produce detailed terms some other way. Do they have to submit their evidence to me by a certain date to give me time to counter?

Their photo evidence can only be what they have produced to you as a SAR anyway so if you haven't got a SAR yet, email the PPC for that now.

In the Newbies thread about the WS it mentions if you paid for the ticket don’t argue ‘no loss’. Please could someone elaborate on what this means?

It's difficult to argue no loss, due to the Beavis case.  Not impossible in a situation with a PDT but a hard one to get past a Judge because the parking charge doesn't have to relate to any loss.  It is better argued that because this situation is VERY different from the free car park in the Beavis case and the parking was paid for, there is no legitimate interest and clearly this Claimant is trying to orchestrate a system that punishes paying drivers. 

Therefore, none of the features that saved the Beavis charge from being struck out as a penalty, save this one.  The claim is fully distinguished from the rationale in Beavis and there was never a commercial justification for the £100 charge to get off the ground.  The Beavis case Judges at the Supreme Court said that the intention cannot be simply to punish a driver, there must be a more compelling justification and in this case, it's absent.

George_W12

Thanks Coupon-mad.

I have the SAR, which is what revealed the blurred photos. Any advice if they do produce a stock photo of the sign / terms at the last minute i.e. is there a breach of process of some sort? Do they have to provide their evidence before I do?

I understand the ‘no loss’ piece now, thanks. I’ll focus on the penalty argument.

Coupon-mad

You both have the same evidence deadline but Excel usually provide it with a day to spare so you can add to your WS, if so, just in time.  And a 'stock photo' is not a photo of the sign in situ. 

There is bound to be a close up stock photo in their evidence before the hearing but we all know what an Excel sign looks like.  Look at the images posted today by @firmaten, as I hope you have already?  The best outcomes are from posters who read other relevant threads, every day if possible.  Us regulars read every single post on every thread, every day...you only need to read VCS, Excel and any court claim ones!

George_W12

Today I’ve received their very lengthy WS pack and would appreciate some advice.

In the witness statement they are now referring to both incidents, although the particulars of the claim only mention the second incident (given the other case was thrown out as mentioned above).

Just wondering what the best approach is for my WS? i.e. do I need to get into the specifics of both incidents, or do I argue that the first incident is irrelevant to the case in question?

beamerguy

George_W12 said:

Today I’ve received their very lengthy WS pack and would appreciate some advice.

In the witness statement they are now referring to both incidents, although the particulars of the claim only mention the second incident (given the other case was thrown out as mentioned above).

Just wondering what the best approach is for my WS? i.e. do I need to get into the specifics of both incidents, or do I argue that the first incident is irrelevant to the case in question?

If you can please upload here the EXCEL WS.

When it's long, it's normally full of rubbish

nosferatu1001

ONLY redact YOUR info. Not theirs. If they have redacted something, tell us. This is important. 

You do a simple one liner in your WS stating claim x relating to incident dated y was struck out by the CCBC so you are unsure why the claimant is wasting Courts and Defendants time with it now

George_W12

See attached Excel's WS and Site Info.
My redactions / comments are highlighted in yellow, everything else is unchanged.
Anything highlighted in blue is original and presumably things they should have deleted from their template!
In addition, they've also attached:

• the claim form relevant to the case
• my defence for this case
• reams of generic site photos
• several pictures of my car from both incidents
• a list of payments made via Ringo which misses out the payments made around the date of the second incident, for which I have a receipts.
• my appeal for the first incident (not this claim)
• letters they've sent relating to both incidents / NTKs etc
• several blank pages and pages with huge areas of black ink printed across them!

Coupon-mad

OMG that WS wins the prize for the most irrelevant rubbish seen and multiple repetition of the exact same wording (3 times in some cases!).

I think your comments are very valid! 

You could even take a pencil and strike through every example of repetition and ask the Judge to disregard the Claimant's WS in its entirety, given that it attempts to make submissions and includes opinion and advocacy that has no place in such a statement.  The WS adds nothing to assist the court or narrow the issues, has been written by someone recently employed by the Claimant just 3 months ago, who has no personal knowledge of any facts, has not explained the source of the evidence, much of which is either undated photos or details relating to the PCN that was already struck out and is not part of this claim.  The witness for the Claimant has wasted the court and Defendant's time.  As he is a paralegal he should know that this is an abuse and WS are not mean to be such a pile of prolix:

https://www.civillitigationbrief.com/2017/05/24/amendment-pleadings-nearly-oppressive-conduct-and-prolix-witness-statements-master-issues-an-early-warning/

https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/commentary-and-opinion/witness-statements-rip-them-up-and-start-again/5068467.article