BW Legal - Small Claims Court stage

Nameless

Le_Kirk said:

If the time for a court appearance (of any sort) is close, why are you asking for your defence to be reviewed, presumably, some time ago you sent that to CCBC and have since been allocated to a court and sent your witness statement, evidence and summary cost assessment.

Sorry, I meant witness statement.

Umkomaas

Well what you've posted looks like a Defence, not a WS. 

Look at the thread of @jrhys for a good example of how a WS should be drafted. 

Nameless

thank you - i realised my mistake I am finalising my WS - today ai received their WS and they have casually lied - they have submitted a contract for other bays they manage in that area. Basically there are two sets of bays in that area - they manage both but for 2 different organisations. They are using this to prove that they have permission to issue the PCN in my case. 

They do not have a contract with my organisation thats gives them permission to manage parking specifically in that area. I am trying to get hold of the land deed diagrams that shows who the actual owners are of the parking bays I parked in.

Also, they don't have any proof of the specific bays they have control of in that area. 

Any advice will be appreciated.


attached is the contract they have added to their WS.

Nameless

Hi All, below is the link for WS of the claimant - it is redacted - I would appreciate your thoughts on this please - above and beyond everything they have clearly lied and has presented to the courts a contract that is not with my Employer - and thus does not cover the bays where my car was parked. They have provided a contract of the other bays they manage in that area - and this contract is with the other organisation. 

I'm finalizing my WS which will include pictures that shows the 2 separate parking areas.

I am really shocked how they are using a contract that has no relevance to this case and trying to get away with it.

Thanks for your help in advance.    

Claimant WS: https://pdf.ac/HQdsD

Coupon-mad

26 and 27 says that this PPC offered POPLA. 
The only problem with that is, PPM are not a BPA AOS member and POPLA is only for BPA firms.  Clearly a cut & paste template witness statement then, which you must mention in court and point out that this same witness has continued, at #34 - 37, by complaining that you, a litigant in person, dared to adapt a template defence and that you are unreasonable!  At least you got the facts right.

#91 says 'an appeal is binding'. 
That's not true.  An appeal case is only 'persuasive' on other Judges if facts are the same and they are at liberty to distinguish a case.  It is not binding and this WS was signed by a supposed legally-qualified person, yes?

Umkomaas

26 and 27 says that this PPC offered POPLA.  
The only problem with that is, PPM are not a BPA AOS member and POPLA is only for BPA firms.  Clearly a cut & paste template witness statement then, which you must mention in court and point out that this same witness has continued, at #34 - 37, by complaining that you, a litigant in person, dared to adapt a template defence and that you are unreasonable!  At least you got the facts right.

From the Wayback Machine (the IPC no longer shows members' dates of joining), P&PM joined the IPC AOS on 24/12/2013. The statement re POPLA is around 4 years out of date. 

Nameless

Coupon-mad said:

26 and 27 says that this PPC offered POPLA. 
The only problem with that is, PPM are not a BPA AOS member and POPLA is only for BPA firms.  Clearly a cut & paste template witness statement then, which you must mention in court and point out that this same witness has continued, at #34 - 37, by complaining that you, a litigant in person, dared to adapt a template defence and that you are unreasonable!  At least you got the facts right.

#91 says 'an appeal is binding'. 
That's not true.  An appeal case is only 'persuasive' on other Judges if facts are the same and they are at liberty to distinguish a case.  It is not binding and this WS was signed by a supposed legally-qualified person, yes?

Thank you for this - appreciated and I have made a note.
Here is my draft WS: https://pdf.ac/X50ct
I will be submitting later today. I still need to add the crosby appendix and sort out my content page. I just wanted some feedback if I am on the right track or not. 
The fact that they have used a fake/invalid contract should be sufficient to get this thrown out I hope. This contract is with a company that does not control the bays in which I parked and they have no proof of the bays they have control over. 

Appreciate your thoughts. 

Coupon-mad

In #2 you have the word 'fine'.   Remove that, it was never and still isn't a fine or penalty!  It was a parking charge notice (an invoice).

#5 is confusing and I think scrap it and instead talk about where they have referenced it as an exhibit in their WS (you are allowed to respond to their WS as you got it first).  Refer to that exhibit and explain what's wrong with their evidence at #5 instead.

You then need to add the things I mentioned.

And don't use the Southampton case of Britannia v Crosby.   

Look at the more recent WS example by @jrhys, and copy the style of that instead - it uses Excel v Wilkinson to explain why PPCs can't add false sums that they haven't expended, and represent double recovery for sending the letter chain that the parking charge already has to cover (as the Beavis case says).

Johnersh

BlockNet Ltd is a dissolved company and the registered address of the company is via Kaiser & Associates.

Castle

Johnersh said:

BlockNet Ltd is a dissolved company and the registered address of the company is via Kaiser & Associates.

I think the "contract" is supposed to be between PPM and 17-19 Plumbers Row Freehold Ltd which actually exists, (Company number 07856755).

What's more interesting is that BlockNet Limited, (Company number 11852765), wasn't incorporated until 28th February 2019; more than a year after the "contract" was signed...some "Crystal Ball" unless the dates on the "contract" are wrong?